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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Thu Apr 16 18:07:41 CEST 2009
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 04:33:10PM +0200, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > In which case HD-ratio will apply, or at least I assume RIPE-301, 2.6 > would equally apply to IPv6 as it does to IPv4. First of all, one doesn't have to close/merge LIR if "can afford" it. Moreover, existing LIR can (there is simplification here): 1. setup new LIR (withing the same organization; for example in another country, part of country, with different funds, etc.), 2. send RIPE-425 form, 3. obtain another allocation (probably /32). I assume, that in most cases this first IPv6 allocation is more than enough and HD-ratio in this scenario is not used. Note that there are organizations which (ab)use the current policy using that method just to obtain another "initial" allocation and this is exactly "you get as much address as you can afford" which is not a good policy. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]