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] RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)

• Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
• Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)

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

David Conrad drc at virtualized.org
Tue Jul 19 19:55:20 CEST 2011

On Jul 18, 2011, at 9:38 PM, Jasper Jans wrote:
> The RIPE currently reserves a /29 for every initial /32.

Is this really true?  When the RIRs and IANA were discussing the /12 allocations, the RIRs claimed one of the reasons they needed /12s was because they would all be using the "bisection method" of allocation to remove the need for reservation. It would be sad to hear RIPE still hadn't followed through.

Regards,
-drc

• Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
• Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)

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

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]