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] Update in the Policy Proposal Archive for Proposal 2009-01, "Global Policy for Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Tue Nov 15 08:37:16 CET 2011
On 11/14/11 9:29 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote: > It is not that I disagree on that /29 is a good size... but, just to > repeat myself and some others. > > Why are we doing this step by step all over again? Last we went from > /35 to /32, now we go from /32 to /29. > I guess the next time we'll be talking about this topic is around 2015-2017... > Why not do it properly this time around? Like a /26 or so? We got > plenty of address space to burn really.... Dear Roger, /29 was chosen for "fairness" factor - every legacy /32 can be expanded to /29 without renumbering, as that is exactly the amount of space "reserved" for every /32. If we decide to go to /26, then only new allocations gets /26, legacy ones need to renumber if expanded. It's a tradeoff in favor of fairness. Cheers, Jan
- 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] Update in the Policy Proposal Archive for Proposal 2009-01, "Global Policy for Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]