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] 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] 2010-04 New Draft Document Published (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Fri Sep 3 18:41:04 CEST 2010
On 03/09/2010 17:15, Remco van Mook wrote: > Nick Hilliard wrote: >> So the "assignment-size:" really means maximum assignment size rather >> than exact assignment size? > > There's certainly nothing stopping you from doing that - however it'll > leave you with some explaining to do by the time you want your next > block, because the smaller sub-assignments might not be reflected in HD > ratios. I'm concerned that unless this is spelled out, it creates a hole for unsuspecting LIRs to fall into. Think of how much future LIR and IPRA frustration could be prevented by making a one-line note in the "Usage" section about what will happen if you mix-n-match your assignment sizes! Nick
- 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] 2010-04 New Draft Document Published (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]