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 ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Wed Jul 20 18:49:48 CEST 2011
On 7/20/11 6:30 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote: > 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? Idea... If you are LIR that had no clue and got /32 but now when you know that you need more and can justify that, you could ask RIPE-NCC IPRA to get back your original /32, start looking into your justification under initial alloc policy and if you justify for anything up to (including) /29, IPRA allocates you justified block starting exactly where "returned" /32 started. Problem solved, no need to renumber. Do we need to put this into policy (if accepted) or would BCP work (as this can be best current practice :) )? Cheers, Jan Zorz
- 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 ]