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 ]
David Croft
david at sargasso.net
Fri Oct 22 02:24:55 CEST 2010
On 21 October 2010 14:23, James Blessing <james.blessing at despres.co.uk> wrote: > I have 256 machines and 1 router, that's 257 addresses required. Under > the new wording I can't then have a /23 because I have a requirement > for 253 more addresses to make it up... Under that circumstance you'd get a /23 under existing policy. The intent seems to be that if you'd normally be assigned a /29-/25, it's rounded up to a /24. The limit of 248 addresses presumably being to stop abuse, by enabling the NCC to assess this 'slack' across multiple allocations. David
- 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 ]