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] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Freedman
david.freedman at uk.clara.net
Mon Nov 14 14:27:25 CET 2011
+1 On 14 Nov 2011, at 10:14, "James Blessing" <james.blessing at despres.co.uk> wrote: > Hi all, > > It seems that the consensus is that up to a /29 is the right amount of > space for the majority of networks, if that is the case I've think we > should add the following: > > == > > 5.1.x > > Organisations that have already received their initial allocations are > able to request additional address space up to a /29 without supplying > of further documentation as if they were a first time requestor. > > == > > The logic being that this solves the problem for networks who deployed > before this change and avoids the issues with HD ratio (which I think > needs some looking at, but not here) > > J > > -- > > James Blessing > 07989 039 476 >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]