[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 ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Mon Oct 24 18:07:02 CEST 2011
Hi there, On 24 Oct 2011, at 09:41, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote: > 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? This might be a good idea. Asking for impact analysis stats might be funny, along the lines of "RIPENCC running out in 2 millennia rather than 6", but impact analysis/due diligence is important. If we decided to reserve a /26 per future lir, is this in line with and permitted by any global policy, should RIPENCC need to go and ask for more v6 ? Andy
- 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 ]