--- jlaundry(a)jlaundry.com wrote:
From: Jed Laundry <jlaundry(a)jlaundry.com>
Pardon my ignorance of the APNIC list discussions, but is the point to:
1. allow /24s to be used by different ASes for short periods of time to
handle peak demands? I can only think of mobile IP providers in different
timezones being a "sensible" example of this.
2. to allow ASes to claim a need for addresses based on short term customer
uses? This is an edge case; I've run a couple of events where I needed a
/26 for a weekend, which was taken from the provider's existing pool.
3. to mark addresses as leased (i.e. cloud servers) to avoid blacklist hell
for the next poor unfortunate soul to use them? (glhf?)
You forgot 4. to spam. Sorta like hourly rates at a motel... >;-)
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG mailing list
The subject line is a question I posed to Geoff Huston years ago in
response to us both musing what the price to purchase address space would
I suggested that if it really got that bad, people would be asking about
leasing by the hour rather than buying outright.
That time looks to be upon us. While not explicitly allowed, nor
disallowed by APNIC policy, IP address leasing is becoming a hot topic of
discussion on relevant APNIC lists.
Should it be allowed?
Should it be disallowed?
It it were disallowed would that actually stop it?
What mechanisms need to be in place to keep it sane? A 'whowas' server for
Should someone be able to be allocated addresses under a needs based policy
just so they can make money leasing them?
Does leasing addresses mean that you no longer need them? Should you be
required to return the ?
These and many more issues are questions I'd like you all to give me feed
This topic will come up in APRICOT 2014 in Thailand. I'd like to know a
lot more about what you all think about it before I take the mic.
Technical Policy Advisor
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand.
Chorus have been developing new UFB service templates through the Right Performing process. The main focus has been on increasing burst sizes to permit better TCP performance, and a corresponding relaxation of the delay and jitter SLA.
The latest version has been submitted to the TCF for approval this week.
Just in case you don't participate in the TCF, you can download a copy from https://db.tt/RgaqMjYL.
If you have any comments/abuse please share them (but don't hassle me about the maths - I didn't write it)
Network Specialist Layer 2
+64 4 498 5602
+64 27 514 8048
Level 3, Deloitte House, 10 Brandon Street
P O Box 632, Wellington
Aon Hewitt Best Employer in Australasia 2013
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.