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 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roger Jørgensen
rogerj at gmail.com
Mon Oct 24 10:27:56 CEST 2011
Sound like a good idea to make it easier to get a /29, but Michael Adams had one sentence that I think I've heard before..... On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Michael Adams <madams at netcologne.de> wrote: <snip> > I'm conviced a /29 will be very helpful for proper addressing plans and I'm strongly supporting this proposal. Isn't that almost the same that was said when we went from /35 to /32, and now again when we go to /29? Nothing wrong in that, the world keep growing so it's just fair the address-space grow with it. -- Roger Jorgensen | rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]