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] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
James Blessing
james.blessing at despres.co.uk
Thu Oct 21 14:05:49 CEST 2010
On 21 October 2010 13:01, Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie> wrote: > On 21/10/2010 12:48, James Blessing wrote: >> >> Either I'm going mental or doesn't the line: >> >> "Cumulatively, no more than 248 additional IPv4 addresses may be >> assigned to any particular End User for the purposes outlined in >> section 6.10." >> >> make the proposal completely pointless > > In what regard? "The RIPE NCC will assign additional IPv4 addresses to an End User in order to make the assignment size a multiple of a /24" Last time I looked /24 = 256 addresses Therefore you can't give a 'new' end user a /24 as they have no address space to return and 256 > 248. If it was 2048 then I could understand the logic... J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]