[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Wed Jan 4 20:01:09 CET 2012
On 02/01/2012 14:10, Emilio Madaio wrote: > - The proposed new section 5.1.2 was reworded > - Section 5.7 was not removed but it was reworded two issues here: 1. I don't agree with this revised version for the reasons outlined in: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2011-November/006577.html specifically, there is still no justification required to move from /32 to /29. 2. if the plan is to use the entire /29 for the purposes of 6rd (or other transition tech) - so that you can assign up to a /62 for each 6rd end-user, then what address space does the LIR use for the rest of its allocation requirements? I.e. will another allocation will be required for traditional ipv6 assignments? Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]