DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] NRO NC Call for Nominations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Wed Jul 22 10:30:35 CEST 2009
On 22 Jul 2009, at 09:19, Remco van Mook wrote: > The RIPE NCC’s minimum allocation size is /21. Consequently, the > initial > allocation size is /21. However, at the explicit request of the > member, a > smaller initial allocation up to a /24 can be made. In those cases, > the RIPE > NCC shall not make efforts to keep adjacent address space available > for > possible future allocation requests. First thoughts - No opposed to this at all, but please make the smaller allocations from a new /8 so that existing minimum allocation size documentation/filters do not need to be updated. Because we know that a lot of the time they wont be. :-) Andy -- Regards, Andy Davidson +44 (0)20 7993 1700 www.netsumo.com NetSumo Ltd, Specialist networks consultancy for ISPs, Whitelabel 24/7 NOC /* Opinions are my own and & may not constitute policy of any org I work for */
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] NRO NC Call for Nominations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]