[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michiel Klaver
michiel at klaver.it
Mon Sep 14 15:15:45 CEST 2009
Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Michiel, > >> I would suggest we wait until we hit the final /12 and assign those >> addresses as fixed /24 blocks only. Big enough for new entrants to setup >> their IPv4 network and communicate with the 'legacy' internet of today. >> Too small for the rest of us and force everyone to dive into the deep >> with IPv6. > > If I understand you correctly this would be something like proposed in > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2009/msg00720.html, > with a reserved /12 for initial allocations of a fixed /24 size. > > Or do you mean something different? > > Thanks, > Sander > > Hi Sander, that indeed is the same, except for the size of the reserved assignments. With a /12 divided into fixed /24 prefixes you will create a pool of 4096 available /24 blocks. Given the current RIPE LIR member count of 5000+ and still growing, that amount of 4096 /24 blocks should be sufficient for a number of years. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver IT Professional
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]