RIPE NCC address request retracted
Dear colleagues, as a matter of good housekeeping I would like to announce that the RIPE NCC has retracted its request for addresses for "Business Operations", as presented at RIPE 63 (http://ripe63.ripe.net/presentations/53-resource-request.pdf). kind regards, Axel Pawlik
axel,
as a matter of good housekeeping I would like to announce that the RIPE NCC has retracted its request for addresses for "Business Operations", as presented at RIPE 63 (http://ripe63.ripe.net/presentations/53-resource-request.pdf).
ok, i'll bite. what is the ncc doing instead? or is the need no longer perceived? randy
Randy,
ok, i'll bite. what is the ncc doing instead? or is the need no longer perceived?
need continues. Have instructed staff to find fitting address space in the current holdings, and if needed, restructure / renumber. I should have insisted on that from the start, my responsibility... greetings, Axel
Hi Axel,
ok, i'll bite. what is the ncc doing instead? or is the need no longer perceived?
need continues. Have instructed staff to find fitting address space in the current holdings, and if needed, restructure / renumber.
appreciate the answer.
True, ideally I would also like to see a comparison of effort of new address space to be used vs. legacy space analyzed and reorganized in order to save new request. (unit to measured in man-hours and amount of address space under discussion). Idea is to motivate people to start considering reorg vs. new blocks + requests for distribution. I also understand that above a certain size, this never would make sense. Regards, Kurt -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
On 06/12/11 14:17, Kurt Kayser wrote:
True, ideally I would also like to see a comparison of effort of new address space to be used vs. legacy space analyzed and reorganized in order to save new request. (unit to measured in man-hours and amount of address space under discussion). Idea is to motivate people to start considering reorg vs. new blocks + requests for distribution. I also understand that above a certain size, this never would make sense.
On the other hand I'd rather not see any more wasted time go down this rat-hole. Nigel
On 6 Dec 2011, at 16:27, Nigel Titley wrote:
On the other hand I'd rather not see any more wasted time go down this rat-hole.
+1 The (improper) request has been withdrawn and that's the end of it. Move on: nothing to see here.
On 6 dec 2011, at 18:00, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 6 Dec 2011, at 16:27, Nigel Titley wrote:
On the other hand I'd rather not see any more wasted time go down this rat-hole.
+1
The (improper) request has been withdrawn and that's the end of it. Move on: nothing to see here.
Agreed. Let's not waste any further time on this. (And let's certainly not ask the RIPE NCC to spend any more time and resources on it.) Nurani
On 12/6/11 7:36 AM, "Axel Pawlik" <axel.pawlik@ripe.net> wrote:
Randy,
ok, i'll bite. what is the ncc doing instead? or is the need no longer perceived?
need continues. Have instructed staff to find fitting address space in the current holdings, and if needed, restructure / renumber.
I should have insisted on that from the start, my responsibility...
greetings, Axel
Thanks for setting a good example. Best, -M<
participants (7)
-
Axel Pawlik -
Hannigan, Martin -
Jim Reid -
Kurt Kayser -
Nigel Titley -
Nurani Nimpuno -
Randy Bush