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] 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 ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Tue Jul 28 10:36:21 CEST 2009
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:56:14PM +0200, Per Heldal wrote:
> I've re-read the proposal, and I do agree that RIPE should not
> hand out blocks smaller than what is defined as the minimum assignment.
They don't. The defined minimum assignment size for IPv4 PI is a /32.
> Handing out blocks smaller than what is permitted through general
> filtering recommendations makes no sense. Sorry for the confusion.
Now there's the catch: who defines what is "permitted" on the Internet?
If we could get a clear document from the Internet Routing Police, we
could tie the policy to that...
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
--
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
- 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 ]