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] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ppml] [GLOBAL-V6] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
michael.dillon at bt.com
michael.dillon at bt.com
Tue Jul 3 08:01:36 CEST 2007
> So if an organisation planned to connect eight internal sites > through a single external connection they should receive a > /32 and not a /45 or /44? I believe that they should receive 8 /48s from their ISP. I also think that it would be beneficial to both ISP and customer to assign an aggregatable block of 8. In future, those eight sites could end up with separate Internet connections either through an architecture change or through divestment. When a company sells a site, it is like a slow motion version of mobile Internet. But, since an organization with a single external connection is not an ISP, they should not receive a /32. In general, /32s should be for organizations with steadily growing networks and also a few critical infrastructure types of organization which needs the operational characteristics of an ISP allocation. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ppml] [GLOBAL-V6] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]