This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[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 ]
Dan Luedtke
maildanrl at googlemail.com
Mon Oct 24 11:59:51 CEST 2011
Hallo, On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Michael Adams <madams at netcologne.de> wrote: > 2) Stick to policy for subsequent allocations. In our case this > means additional unneccessary work. Anyway it ends in a /29 for us. Isn't it better to change that procedure to not require unnecessary work? The space is reserved for growth and to contain fragmentation. Instead of increasing the initial allocation I propose to make it easier to request subsequent allocations from the prior reserved /29. A short notice "hey, we are growing" should be enough. If it's not, then we need to change that. Handing out /29 initially might lead to over-generous network planing, but one should not be having problems getting the rest of one's /29 when growing! But maybe I am just not getting your point?! regards. danrl -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de
- 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 ]