[address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Tue Aug 18 12:36:58 CEST 2009
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > Some time ago, IPv4 filtering blocks longer than /20 was fairly common. > In fact, when ARIN passed 2002-3 (its micro-assignment policy for > multi-homed networks), that was still the case. While there was not a > land-rush to claim smaller blocks, there was adoption even though the > recipients had to deal with this, and over time it all seems to have > sorted itself out adequately. The /20 filtering mentioned was probably for ARIN blocks then, because it wasn't a general practice as I've experience with /24 in RIPE space since 1995-1996 or so and it wasn't a problem back then and is not now. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]