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 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 ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Mon Oct 24 10:41:40 CEST 2011
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Roger Jørgensen wrote: > 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. Haven't we already reserved the encompassing /29 per initial /32 the past few years? Does this proposal suggest that a /26 should be reserved for an initial allocation of /29? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- 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 ]