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 ]

Leo Vegoda leo.vegoda at icann.org
Wed Jul 20 18:30:50 CEST 2011

Hi Andrea,

Your wrote:

> According to our experience only LIRs that needed a block much larger
> than /29 found it worth the effort to return their /32.

I don't know how I should understand you statement. Should I take it to mean that the policy is impeding LIRs who would otherwise qualify for larger allocations from getting them because they will have to renumber their whole network? Or something else?

Thanks,

Leo Vegoda

• 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 ]