[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
Tue May 12 13:32:53 CEST 2015
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Mathew Newton < Mathew.Newton643 at official.mod.uk> wrote: (..., yes, I read it all) Even though I may have been vague with the numbers and specifics, does it > help shed any light on how we might struggle to fit into a /29 allocation? > In many respects, for us I feel that the fact there are >500k /48's in a > /29 is similar to the fact that a /64 subnet has 2^64 addresses within it - > it doesn't necessarily mean what the figures might otherwise first suggest! > This makes me curious. Your /29 is the equivalent of 8 IPv4 internets, if we ignore that /64 subnet thing. How do you manage your IPv4 space, then? Do you actually have routing that needs more than 8 total IPv4 spaces? -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150512/2a52ff7d/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 ]