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/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/

[ipv6-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)

• Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
• Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Andy Davidson andy at nosignal.org
Fri Sep 3 11:12:37 CEST 2010

On 1 Sep 2010, at 14:34, Emilio Madaio wrote:

> You can find the full proposal at:
>    http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-06.html

Hello everyone

Do we need this new status attribute ?  If I have a /32, and I assign a /48 to be a dsl-pool, with which to make end-user assignments of /56, then that /48 is already assigned isn't it ?  Giving a customer a /56 then makes one slice used, but it's not a sub-assignment is it ?  In the way that if I mark a /24 from a /21 of v4 as a dsl-pool, then I am not implying here that there are 256 sub-assignments ?

Sorry if I have missed something..

Andy

• Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
• Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]