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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck
lists-ripe at c4inet.net
Fri Mar 28 19:23:58 CET 2014
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 06:13:19PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: >You won't, just request IPv6. For IPv4, it will be slightly hard, for >the foreseeable future, to achieve that. > >IOW, I have no idea what you are trying to tell us here...? What I'm trying to tell you here is that abolition of any min-alloc size will again require demonstration of "need" in order to get a useful (ie. routeable) allocation (with all that this entails). Another good question is whether under final-/8 rules, if you can only justify, say a /29, this will be the last request considered? rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]