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] RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Conrad
drc at virtualized.org
Wed Jul 20 21:16:06 CEST 2011
On Jul 19, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 07:55:20AM -1000, David Conrad wrote:
>> On Jul 18, 2011, at 9:38 PM, Jasper Jans wrote:
>>> The RIPE currently reserves a /29 for every initial /32.
>>
>> Is this really true? When the RIRs and IANA were discussing the /12
>> allocations, the RIRs claimed one of the reasons they needed /12s was
>> because they would all be using the "bisection method" of allocation to
>> remove the need for reservation.
>
> Well, how memories change.
?
> I seem to remember that I lobbied for /12s
> (or bigger) because allocations of one-/23-at-a-time were just a stupid
> and human life-time wasting way to handle things... ("The IPv4 Way").
"One of the reasons".
Regards,
-drc
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]