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/
[ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
leo vegoda
leo at ripe.net
Tue Dec 6 09:42:09 CET 2005
Hi Jeroen, Jeroen Massar wrote: > <SNIP> > > I think each LIR should get a /32 and we should drop the > 200 "customer" > > rule. But that is just me... > > A question which most likely only RIPE NCC can answer: has there ever > been a LIR who requested an IPv6 allocation and got rejected? We analysed the requests and questions we have received and presented the details at RIPE 50. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-ap-ipv6nu mbers.pdf mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe-50/address-policy-1.wmv http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r50-minutes.html (section F) Basically, ~2% of requests did not end in address space being registered. We don't know how many requests are not sent in. Regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]