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 ]
Michael Adams
madams at netcologne.de
Mon Oct 24 14:12:24 CEST 2011
Am 24.10.2011 11:59, schrieb Dan Luedtke: > Isn't it better to change that procedure to not require unnecessary work? For us this would be sufficient. Something like "If you qualify for an initial /29 you may extend your /32 directly to a /29 an skip the HD-ratio rule." would perfectly match for us. But I can imagine other scenarios where a /29 from the beginning might be more usefull. 6RD is one them. > The space is reserved for growth and to contain fragmentation. Instead > of increasing the initial allocation I propose to make it easier to > request subsequent allocations from the prior reserved /29. A short > notice "hey, we are growing" should be enough. If it's not, then we Sounds similar. In case you have a /32 and a short notice is enough you can assign a /29 initially and save the time for a subsequent allocation request. In my interpretation "short notice" means you don't have have to fulfill the HD-ratio criteria. There might be other valid reasons than growing. > need to change that. Handing out /29 initially might lead to > over-generous network planing, but one should not be having problems > getting the rest of one's /29 when growing! Actually we are having problems to get the rest of our /29. Our plans have changed since we got our /32 and we can't qualify for subsequent allocation due to the HD ratio. But we need the /29 for a complete v6 roll-out based on the current planning. Right now we have no other choice than to change our planning until we fulfill the HD-ratio criteria. An extension of the minimum allocation size would cover our case because it would allow Ripe to give us "our" /29. cheers, Michael -- Michael Adams Tel: +49 221 2222 657 Network Engineering & Design Fax: +49 221 2222 7657 NetCologne Geschäftsführer Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH Dr. Hans Konle (Sprecher) Am Coloneum 9 Dipl.-Ing. Karl-Heinz Zankel 50829 Köln HRB 25580, Amtsgericht Köln
- 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 ]