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] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Tue Aug 18 12:36:58 CEST 2009
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > Some time ago, IPv4 filtering blocks longer than /20 was fairly common. > In fact, when ARIN passed 2002-3 (its micro-assignment policy for > multi-homed networks), that was still the case. While there was not a > land-rush to claim smaller blocks, there was adoption even though the > recipients had to deal with this, and over time it all seems to have > sorted itself out adequately. The /20 filtering mentioned was probably for ARIN blocks then, because it wasn't a general practice as I've experience with /24 in RIPE space since 1995-1996 or so and it wasn't a problem back then and is not now. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]