I would be against a policy proposal in this form. It would unequal to the members and would create more hassle for everyone (introducing the need based justification again, after we have just removed it...that would be the worst idea)Hi,But instead of running into exhaustion in "2 months" we can handle it to be "2 years". Please, take in account the time between quotes as an example.An example, perhaps, but a wildly unlikely one if I understand¹ your proposal correctly. The LIRs in the RIPE region have over the last 18 month gathered up a large unmet demand. Therefore I expect that if we do create a new small pool for "normal" allocations, it will be gone pretty much overnight. It'll be like a lottery, just like when a radio host announces «we've got N free X for the first Y people to call us». I do not believe this would be useful to the community. [1] To 1) leave the "last /8 policy" as it currently is (1 /22 per LIR) for 185.0.0.0/8 only, and 2) allocate according to demonstrated need for all other addresses that somehow finds their way into the RIPE NCC's allocation pool (such as returned/reclaimed from LIRs, delegated from the IANA Recovered IPv4 Pool, and so forth). This new pool would have a minimum allocation size of /24 and no maximum size. Have I understood correctly?
Tore
Elvis Daniel VeleaChief Business Analyst Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net |
|
Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: |
|
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited. |