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] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Sun Oct 25 17:49:19 CET 2015
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:40, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > Here's a thought experiment: > > Set aside a /12 pool for this particular purpose. I would call this an "almost good" idea. "Almost", because /12 is too small. I would upgrade it to a "good idea" if it were a /11 or even a /10. Or at least "all recovered space since 2014-07-01", which is 1x /12 + 1x /13 + 1x /14 + whatever will follow (current estimate : 1 x /15). However, this will also de facto create an APNIC-style policy with 2 pools, which doesn't seem very popular around. But at the point where we are .... -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]