On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Arash Naderpour wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
I don't see a need to do this change in the policy at the moment.
consummation rate is the same as before.
<co-author hat on>
This proposal is not aimed at preventing the complete runout. That will
happen. This proposal aims to preserve some tiny resources for new
entrants in this community, by trying to extend the time period until the
runout occurs. We cannot "measure" its benefits until the runout occurs,
and we can then count how many new entrants did get a tiny portion of
(new, never used before) IPv4 address space.
Even if there is a need, it could be 3x/24 or /23.why change it from /22 to /24?
Yes, a /23+/24 or a /23 would be a step in the right direction. If, at
global level, a /25 or a /26 was acceptable (routing-wise), then that
would be even better.
I would also like to draw your attention to the last section about
"Alignment with other RIRs": LACNIC already has this in place. ARIN
has something, which isn't really exactly the same, but the main goal is
very similar. :-)
Regards,
Carlos Friaças
Arash
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Tim Chown <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2017, at 13:33, Aled Morris <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> On 21 September 2017 at 12:43, Marco Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
> The goal of this proposal is to reduce the IPv4 allocations made by the
RIPE NCC
> to a /24 (currently a /22) and only to LIRs that have not received an
IPv4 allocation
> directly from the RIPE NCC before.
>
> At the current run-rate, do we know what is the expected expiry of the
free pool in RIPE's hands?
There?s http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/.
Tim
