Hello,
On 10/30/26 8:49 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 04:13:51PM +0200, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
>> All I'm trying to say that, ISPs (like IXPs, which are BTW treated
>> differently) are different from other RIPE members and providing they can
>> show said growth and plans, they should be able to get additional IPv4
>> allocations. In essence, not all LIRs are equally displeased with this
>> policy. Some are more displeased than others.
> So you are saying that if you get more IPs, implying that even *less*
> will be left for others, this would be a positive change?
I'm not implying anything. I'm clearly stating that not all LIRs have
the same needs and unlike IPv6 where we can use the flat "one size for
all" model, in the remaining IPv4, we need to implement a fair
allocation policy and RIPE-826 is not (currently) that.
>
> Assuming "yes", how would the RIPE NCC know what LIRs would be "ISPs",
> whatever that is? DSL providers, cloud providers, hosting service
> providers, friendly neighbourhood wifi services, ...?
It's relatively easy for an LIR to justify extra needs because of being
a mobile service operator or fixed service operator (or both), if you do
not like the "ISP" term, but that's just semantics, details that need to
be ironed out, nothing more.
Yannis
>
> Gert Doering
