[address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Servereasy
info at servereasy.it
Fri Oct 6 23:46:27 CEST 2017
That is the problem: _for free_. A new LIR who owns a single /22 (current value: €10k) pays as much as a LIR who owns a /12 (€10M for something that they paid about 0€). There are too many interest behind IPv4 deficiency. This is totally unfair. Simple as that. Il 06/10/2017 22:01, Aleksey Bulgakov ha scritto: > Hi, all! > > I agree with Yury and oppose this proposal. It would be better to > return unused allocations more than 24 months not from the last /8 > pool. Many companies have /16, maybe more *f**or free.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20171006/55cdb4aa/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]