[address-policy-wg] [Ext] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ext] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Fri Oct 20 00:55:33 CEST 2017
Marco Schmidt wrote: [...] > Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification" > is now in the Review Phase. I am neither speaking for or against the proposal but would like to ask to a question to clarify my understanding. The proposal states: "Although the IPv6 address space is huge, it's still finite. Users only needing a /48 (or less) for their organisation would also block a full /29 prefix when forced to become LIR which seems unproportioned." But some years ago, the RIPE NCC stated that it was using a bisection approach to allocate from its /12: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2011-July/006176.html Is that still the case and if it is, it would be good to understand how each new /32 allocation blocks a /29. I had understood that defined reservations were no longer necessary for new allocations because of the changed approach to allocating address space. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4988 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20171019/281ca72d/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ext] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]