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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[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 ]