[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 ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Mon Nov 14 22:55:26 CET 2011
Hi Roger, Roger Jørgensen wrote: [...] > It is not that I disagree on that /29 is a good size... but, just to > repeat myself and some others. > > Why are we doing this step by step all over again? Last we went from > /35 to /32, now we go from /32 to /29. > I guess the next time we'll be talking about this topic is around 2015-2017... > Why not do it properly this time around? Like a /26 or so? We got > plenty of address space to burn really.... Where does the /26 come from? Or to put it another way, assuming the basis for allocation policy is justified need, what need is considered so universal that no justification is required? Regards, Leo Vegoda
- 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 ]