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 ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Mon Oct 24 18:07:02 CEST 2011
Hi there, On 24 Oct 2011, at 09:41, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote: > 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? This might be a good idea. Asking for impact analysis stats might be funny, along the lines of "RIPENCC running out in 2 millennia rather than 6", but impact analysis/due diligence is important. If we decided to reserve a /26 per future lir, is this in line with and permitted by any global policy, should RIPENCC need to go and ask for more v6 ? Andy
- 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 ]