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] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
James Blessing
james.blessing at despres.co.uk
Thu Apr 1 14:53:38 CEST 2010
On 01/04/2010 13:36, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Number: 2010-01 > Policy Proposal Name: Revoke and Re-assign Fairly > The RIPE NCC will allocate 640 IPv4 addresses to each LIR, because that > that should be more than enough for anyone. PI assignments requests will > be greeted with even more giggles than they currently are. Why 640, surely an allocation on a bit boundry would be more suitable? The fact that many people get stuck with CIDR addressing I would like to see that the first allocation be made on the /24 boundry. Organisations required a second (or maybe even a third) could always apply for one *after* all the other existing LIRs have completed their requests. J -- James Blessing http://www.despres.co.uk/ 07989 039 476 Superbia in Proelio
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]