This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 InitialAllocation Criteria
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 InitialAllocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
steffann at nederland.net
Mon Apr 4 12:10:15 CEST 2005
Hi, > The 200 thing can go indeed. I completely agree. > The /48, which is the minimum assignment > towards that endsite must stay. Otherwise there will be ISP's who are > going to give out /56's, /58's, /60's, /62's etc. This I am not so sure about. Fixing the assignment size on /48 makes the structure of address allocations and assignments very clear, but I am not sure if we should make this official policy or just a recommendation. I don't see a problem with assigning a /48 to a customer, but maybe this should be the decision of the LIR... - Sander.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 InitialAllocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]