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] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Mon Feb 4 15:02:15 CET 2019
Hi Daniel, > But how tenable is it both in principle and in 'Internet governance' > terms for the NCC to collect fragmentlets of IPv4 and just sit on them? > > Not very! > > So we need a policy to allocate them in a useful manner. > > The question before us is: What is the minimum useful allocation? > Nothing else. You are much better at summarising than I am :) Andrea Cima has shown us at RIPE76 that /22 is not useful, and /24 is just about useful. Cheers, Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]