[address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments): discussion in the IPv6-WG mailing list
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments): discussion in the IPv6-WG mailing list
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Draft Document Published (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Fri Sep 3 18:41:04 CEST 2010
On 03/09/2010 17:15, Remco van Mook wrote: > Nick Hilliard wrote: >> So the "assignment-size:" really means maximum assignment size rather >> than exact assignment size? > > There's certainly nothing stopping you from doing that - however it'll > leave you with some explaining to do by the time you want your next > block, because the smaller sub-assignments might not be reflected in HD > ratios. I'm concerned that unless this is spelled out, it creates a hole for unsuspecting LIRs to fall into. Think of how much future LIR and IPRA frustration could be prevented by making a one-line note in the "Usage" section about what will happen if you mix-n-match your assignment sizes! Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments): discussion in the IPv6-WG mailing list
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Draft Document Published (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]