Hi Carlos,
> > 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. The current policy without this change is doing the same, preserving tiny resources (/22) for new entrants. You are saying that there are some benefit and we cannot measure them now, but lets do it, am I right? > 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. :-) > Still unanswered, why /24 not a /23+/24 or a /23? what is the benefit of this "Alignment with other RIRs" to the RIPE community? I don't see any need for that too. Regards, Arash > 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 >> >> >> >>
