[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 InitialAllocation Criteria
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 InitialAllocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
steffann at nederland.net
Mon Apr 4 12:10:15 CEST 2005
Hi, > The 200 thing can go indeed. I completely agree. > The /48, which is the minimum assignment > towards that endsite must stay. Otherwise there will be ISP's who are > going to give out /56's, /58's, /60's, /62's etc. This I am not so sure about. Fixing the assignment size on /48 makes the structure of address allocations and assignments very clear, but I am not sure if we should make this official policy or just a recommendation. I don't see a problem with assigning a /48 to a customer, but maybe this should be the decision of the LIR... - Sander.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 InitialAllocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]