[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] Update in the Policy Proposal Archive for Proposal 2009-01, "Global Policy for Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Tue Nov 15 08:37:16 CET 2011
On 11/14/11 9:29 PM, 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.... Dear Roger, /29 was chosen for "fairness" factor - every legacy /32 can be expanded to /29 without renumbering, as that is exactly the amount of space "reserved" for every /32. If we decide to go to /26, then only new allocations gets /26, legacy ones need to renumber if expanded. It's a tradeoff in favor of fairness. Cheers, Jan
- 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] Update in the Policy Proposal Archive for Proposal 2009-01, "Global Policy for Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]