[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 ]
David Conrad
drc at virtualized.org
Mon Oct 24 20:52:06 CEST 2011
On Oct 24, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Gert Doering wrote: >>> 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... Somebody (or hopefully somebodies) forgot a smiley. Regards, -drc
- 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 ]