[address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Turchanyi Geza
turchanyi.geza at gmail.com
Mon Nov 14 12:15:40 CET 2011
Hello James, Speeking about concensus is definitely wrong. I'll send a longer critical aanlyses later, Best, Géza On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:13 AM, James Blessing < james.blessing at despres.co.uk> wrote: > Hi all, > > It seems that the consensus is that up to a /29 is the right amount of > space for the majority of networks, if that is the case I've think we > should add the following: > > == > > 5.1.x > > Organisations that have already received their initial allocations are > able to request additional address space up to a /29 without supplying > of further documentation as if they were a first time requestor. > > == > > The logic being that this solves the problem for networks who deployed > before this change and avoids the issues with HD ratio (which I think > needs some looking at, but not here) > > J > > -- > > James Blessing > 07989 039 476 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20111114/f318865e/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]