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 ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Wed Feb 15 21:10:02 CET 2012
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:47:59AM -0500, Tiberiu Ungureanu wrote: > 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? The problem is that the "additional allocation" policy is far more draconian than the "initial allocation" policy. HD ratio doesn't matter for the initial alloc, but for any additional alloc. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- 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 ]