[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
Wed Jul 20 21:16:06 CEST 2011
On Jul 19, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 07:55:20AM -1000, David Conrad wrote: >> 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. > > Well, how memories change. ? > I seem to remember that I lobbied for /12s > (or bigger) because allocations of one-/23-at-a-time were just a stupid > and human life-time wasting way to handle things... ("The IPv4 Way"). "One of the reasons". 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 ]