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] 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 ]
Jerzy Pawlus
Jerzy.Pawlus at cyf-kr.edu.pl
Fri Apr 17 12:28:57 CEST 2009
Marco wrote: [...] > > I find it less restrictive, administrative ease is allowed and you'll > always get a /32. > As you will always get a minimum allocation slot for IPv4. So you can't say it is less restrictive. The problem with /32 is that it is too big and 99% of LIR's will never approach to HD-Ratio. So in the future IPv6 table you will have a few thousand of PA prefixes and possible ten's of thousand PI prefixes. Certainly we can spare a few hundred additional PA prefixes for the new policy. Regards, Jurek
- 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 ]