[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 ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Mon Oct 24 19:38:15 CEST 2011
Hi, On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:29:15AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > >> I'm conviced a /29 will be very helpful for proper addressing plans > >> and I'm strongly supporting this proposal. > > 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. > > why are we screwing around? let's go straight to a /16 or at least a > /20. So you're proposing to adjust the proposal for a minimum size of /20? It's a tough fit inside RIPE's /12, but I always thought that was too narrow-minded in the first place. With a /20 per LIR, RIPE would need a /7 now and a /6 soonish - which would be nicely utilizing the available space inside FP001... Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
- 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 ]