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] Proposal 2010-02
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Thu Oct 21 15:58:49 CEST 2010
Hi Scott, > It seems that section 2 is a no-op, because the space is not really reserved if it's just returned to the pool when the /8 runs out... Is that the intent? It makes sure that there is one clearly defined /16 block reserved. Otherwise we might end up with unused fragments all over the whole /8. I don't know if that was the intent of the authors, but it might be useful and it doesn't seem to have any negative side effects. - Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]