[address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Tue Jul 23 23:03:57 CEST 2019
"e.g. geographic association" -- really...?????? Cheers, Carlos On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg wrote on 22/07/2019 14:26: >> IMHO, this is not the case here. Let's try not to fall in the false >> dilemma here. > > there's no false dichotomy. > > Non legacy address space falls under various policies e.g. geographic > association and being subject to high RIR costs. These policies are what > causes legacy address space to cost more than RIR address space on the > address market. > > If a legacy block is threatened with being converted from something more > valuable to something less valuable, then people will avoid the RIR transfer > route and we'll end up with less accurate registry info. > > Nick > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]