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] 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 ]
Job Snijders
job at instituut.net
Mon Nov 14 16:15:13 CET 2011
I agree. On 14 nov. 2011, at 11:13, James Blessing wrote: > 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) Sound reasoning! Kind regards, Job
- 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 ]