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
Thu Feb 16 01:12:56 CET 2012
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:20:18PM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: >> 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. > > What I read here is that probably we'll have to revise additional alloc > policy part when we are done with 2011-04, am I right? Yesterday. I see 2011-04 more as a vehicle to buy us three more bits to fix the additional allocation policy mess hopefully in time before folks need more than a /29, and that's why I don't oppose it. :-) 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 ]