[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Aled Morris
aled.w.morris at googlemail.com
Mon May 23 23:14:47 CEST 2016
On 23 May 2016 at 13:48, Riccardo Gori <rgori at wirem.net> wrote: > I think I answered, It's not nice to have, It's business demand and LIRs > should be able to offer... with a /22 I can serve just up to 2 or 3 of my > tipical business customers. > I had the same misunderstanding of the last /8 policy too. That /22 you get isn't for allocating to customers, it's for running a 6/4 NAT translation pool to allow your new and future customers (who are single-stack IPv6) to access the old IPv4 Internet. Hope that helps clarify things. Aled -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160523/2713c6da/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]