[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 18:38:05 CEST 2011
On 7/20/11 12:37 PM, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg wrote: > For me that sounds like this is curing symptoms snstead of the real > cause. I would suggest to add a clause that a) NCC can hand out new > allocations if the addressing plan for the new addresses is sound and > b) that simplifying administrational causes should also be an valid > reason for address need (such as wastful transition mechanisms like 6rd > or assigning /36 per pop eventhough not all pops have more then 2048 /48 to > be assigned but for the sake of a clear network design). With rising smallest initial alloc /29 we do not "cure" this problem, we just make it a bit smaller :) But let's discuss that when we publish the policy change proposal. > > We do have enough addresses and we will not get short on them any time if we > don't to something incredibly stupid So lets not create artifical obstacles. > IPv6 is designed to allow that. Don't give that benefit away by some > IPv4-we-don't-have-enough-addresses-and-must-save-addresses-at-all-costs > habbits. In IPv6 thats just not necessary anymore, there are enough > addresses and making things complicated in order to save addresses is > just not reasonable! talking to convinced. /jan
- 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 ]