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 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Aled Morris
aled.w.morris at googlemail.com
Mon May 23 23:14:47 CEST 2016
On 23 May 2016 at 13:48, Riccardo Gori <rgori at wirem.net> wrote: > I think I answered, It's not nice to have, It's business demand and LIRs > should be able to offer... with a /22 I can serve just up to 2 or 3 of my > tipical business customers. > I had the same misunderstanding of the last /8 policy too. That /22 you get isn't for allocating to customers, it's for running a 6/4 NAT translation pool to allow your new and future customers (who are single-stack IPv6) to access the old IPv4 Internet. Hope that helps clarify things. Aled -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160523/2713c6da/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]