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] 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 ]
Kai 'wusel' Siering
wusel+ml at uu.org
Wed Feb 6 13:10:43 CET 2019
On 06.02.2019 12:32, Denis Fondras wrote: >> If you keep there /22 and /24 as an option, than there would be no problem. > No please, don't let LIR choose. This will only complicate management of > resources. It's a simple flag, "/24 sufficienct: yes/no". > In a FIFO, a LIR asking for /22 would delay a LIR who only > needs a /24. Yes, that would be the case. Since that second LIR won't have the slightest idea when it would receive IPv4 anyway, I fail to seen an issue with that. On the contrary, it emphasis the fact that IPv4 is over. Regards, -kai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190206/062c44fa/attachment.html>
- 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 ]