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] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments): discussion in the IPv6-WG mailing list
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments): discussion in the IPv6-WG mailing list
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments): discussion in the IPv6-WG mailing list
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Remco van Mook
Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com
Fri Sep 3 17:43:40 CEST 2010
I guess it really depends on what you'd want to consider as more important; ease of administration or aggregation. The policy makes the assumption of large amounts of end user assignments being made - if you want out both /48 and /56 from a single PoP and you're going to do both in any significant quantity, I'd personally choose to use separate blocks for the /56 and the /48 assignments to allow for easier recycling. Then those blocks can have their own separate entry in the database, each with a single assignment size. If you need to re-hash block sizes at a later point, you can always change to a larger number of smaller blocks in the database. Database entries are (relatively) cheap. Best Remco > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard > Sent: vrijdag 3 september 2010 17:35 > To: Sander Steffann > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration > Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments): discussion in the IPv6-WG > mailing list > > On 03/09/2010 16:30, Sander Steffann wrote: > > Allowing multiple "assignment-size:" fields might solve that. > > perhaps. But the beauty of only allowing a single size is that the RIPE NCC can > multiply the number of assignments by the value of the > assignment-size: field to find out the H/D ratio. > > I'm not trying to argue out both sides of my mouth here, btw. I'm just trying > to understand what the intention of the proposal is, and whether the > proposal needs to be clearer in this regard. > > Nick This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments): discussion in the IPv6-WG mailing list
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments): discussion in the IPv6-WG mailing list
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]