[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Mon Oct 24 10:41:40 CEST 2011
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Roger Jørgensen wrote: > Isn't that almost the same that was said when we went from /35 to /32, > and now again when we go to /29? Nothing wrong in that, the world keep > growing so it's just fair the address-space grow with it. Haven't we already reserved the encompassing /29 per initial /32 the past few years? Does this proposal suggest that a /26 should be reserved for an initial allocation of /29? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]