[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Thu Oct 21 15:58:49 CEST 2010
Hi Scott, > It seems that section 2 is a no-op, because the space is not really reserved if it's just returned to the pool when the /8 runs out... Is that the intent? It makes sure that there is one clearly defined /16 block reserved. Otherwise we might end up with unused fragments all over the whole /8. I don't know if that was the intent of the authors, but it might be useful and it doesn't seem to have any negative side effects. - Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]