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] Those pesky ULAs again
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Wed May 30 18:36:56 CEST 2007
Lutz Donnerhacke wrote: > * Jørgen Hovland wrote: > >>>* Jørgen Hovland wrote: >>> >>>>Q: Is it correct that you can get a /26 IPv4 PA block, but you can't get >>>>a /96 IPv6 PA block? Why is that? >>> >>>It's not correct. /48, /56, /64, and /112 are the most common >>>assigments here. >> >>Which RIR is that? According to RIPEs IPv6 policy, the minimum PA block >>is /32 so I was kinda wondering. I need a /96. I can even manage with a >>/112. (Please let's not start a useless discussion of why you think I >>need it). > > > I talk about assignments, not about allocations. If you try to get a IPv4 PA > allocation from RIPE, I wonder how you will get a /26. All you can get is an > IPv4 PA assignment from your LIR with a size of /26. > > And now I am feeling royally mixed up... I thought we were discussing IPv6? Wilfried
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]