[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Remco van Mook
remco.vanmook at gmail.com
Wed May 11 09:47:54 CEST 2016
Arash, > On 10 May 2016, at 03:18 , Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc at parsun.com> wrote: > > Remco, <> > > Calling anyone supporting a policy delusional is not really helping the discussion we have here, you can still express your own opinion without using that. > you can't have it both ways - entitle me to my opinion and at the same time saying I'm not allowed to voice it if you don't like it. I stand by what I said, and I can't help being a bit surprised that it took you almost a month to respond to this part of my statement. > > >>. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now. > > We have the same situation with the “new-entrants” joined 2012 (before we reached to last /8) and the ones joined 2 years after that. > > >>The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle about. > > This new policy is not going to hand over any left available IP address in the pool out considering the conditions, 185/8 would be untouched. > Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to 185/8, so your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than half gone by now (9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) - effectively this means the proposal wants over half of what remains in the pool to get released to existing LIRs who've already received their last /22. This cuts the lifespan of the pool for new entrants by more than half, no? Remco -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160511/cccc8ae5/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160511/cccc8ae5/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]