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]/
DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] NRO NC Call for Nominations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Wed Jul 22 10:30:35 CEST 2009
On 22 Jul 2009, at 09:19, Remco van Mook wrote: > The RIPE NCC’s minimum allocation size is /21. Consequently, the > initial > allocation size is /21. However, at the explicit request of the > member, a > smaller initial allocation up to a /24 can be made. In those cases, > the RIPE > NCC shall not make efforts to keep adjacent address space available > for > possible future allocation requests. First thoughts - No opposed to this at all, but please make the smaller allocations from a new /8 so that existing minimum allocation size documentation/filters do not need to be updated. Because we know that a lot of the time they wont be. :-) Andy -- Regards, Andy Davidson +44 (0)20 7993 1700 www.netsumo.com NetSumo Ltd, Specialist networks consultancy for ISPs, Whitelabel 24/7 NOC /* Opinions are my own and & may not constitute policy of any org I work for */
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] NRO NC Call for Nominations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]