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 Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tiberiu Ungureanu
tbb at ines.ro
Wed Feb 15 16:47:59 CET 2012
On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 16:32 +0100, Michael Adams wrote: > 5.1.2 says it's possible to qualify for an initial allocation greater > than /29 based on the number of existing users. > > Shouldn't this be possible for existing IPv6 space holders too? > 5.7 doesn't mention this. Existing IPv6 space holders can request (under the new policy) space to get them to /29. Should they NEED more, based on their existing users, they would probably qualify to request additional space. If they don't qualify to request additional space, do they really NEED more? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20120215/b02bf789/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]