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 ]
David Conrad
drc at virtualized.org
Mon Oct 24 20:52:06 CEST 2011
On Oct 24, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Gert Doering wrote: >>> Nothing wrong in that, the world keep growing so it's just fair the >>> address-space grow with it. >> >> why are we screwing around? let's go straight to a /16 or at least a /20. > > So you're proposing to adjust the proposal for a minimum size of /20? > > It's a tough fit inside RIPE's /12, but I always thought that was too > narrow-minded in the first place. With a /20 per LIR, RIPE would need > a /7 now and a /6 soonish - which would be nicely utilizing the available > space inside FP001... Somebody (or hopefully somebodies) forgot a smiley. Regards, -drc
- 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 ]