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] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Mon Sep 14 12:14:06 CEST 2015
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 09:33, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > I would be interested in getting an educated guess what would happen if > we went with the following policy: > > You get /20 to /24 depending on need/want instead of /22 for everybody. > > This would apply until we have last-/10 where we then go to /22-/24 > depending on need/want. We would treat recovered pool the same as last > /8, it's just treated as "addresses" so /10 is "/10 worth of adresses". Point taken and thanks for the feedback. Good to see some people looking at more than /22 in one shot. > My goal is still to have IPv4 addresses according to this policy by 2020. :) -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]