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 ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Fri Nov 18 14:57:33 CET 2011
On 15/11/2011 14:26, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > Should we put this as optional or suggestion? All RIRs operate on the basis of stated need for their LIR's addressing requirements. 2011-04 suggests increasing the initial allocation from /32 to /29 on the basis that LIRs are going to need to deploy 6rd to their end-users. As an aside, let's stop beating around the bush here: everyone is focussing on 6rd because if it weren't for 6rd, there would be no requirement for 2011-04 - simply because there are no other likely migration mechanisms on the table which a) require lots of extra IP address space and b) look like they might work. Nick
- 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 ]