[address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Ingvoldstad
frettled at gmail.com
Mon May 11 16:53:49 CEST 2015
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote: > Hi Jan, > > > I'd actually be interested to see a real life addressing plan that > needed a /32 bit address space, where the need isn't constructed based on > the mere possibility of getting that space instead of merely e.g. a few > hundre million times of the entire IPv4 space. > > Giving significantly more than a single /64 to a single (home) user is > part of the way IPv6 was designed. A /48 was a standard size from RFC 3177. > It's successor RFC6177 is the current BCP. When working according to that > BCP a /32 and even a /29 is really not that much. > > If you don't agree with an RFC/BCP then this is not the place to deal with > that... > I'll be sure not to answer when asked the next time, thanks. :P -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150511/c1f329b7/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]