[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
James Blessing
james.blessing at despres.co.uk
Fri Oct 22 09:58:52 CEST 2010
On 22 October 2010 01:24, David Croft <david at sargasso.net> wrote: > On 21 October 2010 14:23, James Blessing <james.blessing at despres.co.uk> wrote: >> I have 256 machines and 1 router, that's 257 addresses required. Under >> the new wording I can't then have a /23 because I have a requirement >> for 253 more addresses to make it up... > > Under that circumstance you'd get a /23 under existing policy. Really? Not a /24 and a /29? > The intent seems to be that if you'd normally be assigned a /29-/25, > it's rounded up to a /24. The limit of 248 addresses presumably being > to stop abuse, by enabling the NCC to assess this 'slack' across > multiple allocations. Oh, I agree with what the policy is trying to do. My problem is the wording just needs a little tweak (see my previous suggestion) J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]