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] 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] Input request for the PI Transfer policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck
lists-ripe at c4inet.net
Sat Mar 29 20:17:52 CET 2014
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 05:44:21PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: >The proposal at hand is not affecting "last /8" policy, and as such, >has no influence on routability of allocations handed out by the RIPE NCC. Yep, Janos already pointed out that I missed the bit where 2014-01 doesn't change the "last /8" allocation size. D-oh. >> Another good question is whether under final-/8 rules, if you can only >> justify, say a /29, this will be the last request considered? >Justification of a single IP address will give you your last-/8-/22, if >you had none before. There is no granularity in last-/8 allocations, it's >"a single piece of standard-size fits all". yep, as above. 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] Input request for the PI Transfer policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]