[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] Proposal 2010-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Wed Oct 27 02:55:17 CEST 2010
On 21/10/2010 14:38, kpn-ip-office at kpn.com wrote: > I'm in favour of this policy > > Maybe we should change the sentence > > "Cumulatively, no more than 248 additional IPv4 addresses may be > assigned to any particular End User for the purposes outlined in section > 6.10." > > Into something like > > "Cumulatively, an PI assignment will not reach beyond the next /24 > boundary from the motivated need. This might thus result in an PI > assignment of more than one subnet of which each subnet is a minimum of > a /24". > > (p.e. a /23, /24 when a need of ~ 520 IP-addresses is motivated). I agree that the wording needs a little work to make the intent clearer, but I'm not convinced that this particular suggestion is necessarily better. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]