[address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kai 'wusel' Siering
wusel+ml at uu.org
Wed Feb 6 13:10:43 CET 2019
On 06.02.2019 12:32, Denis Fondras wrote: >> If you keep there /22 and /24 as an option, than there would be no problem. > No please, don't let LIR choose. This will only complicate management of > resources. It's a simple flag, "/24 sufficienct: yes/no". > In a FIFO, a LIR asking for /22 would delay a LIR who only > needs a /24. Yes, that would be the case. Since that second LIR won't have the slightest idea when it would receive IPv4 anyway, I fail to seen an issue with that. On the contrary, it emphasis the fact that IPv4 is over. Regards, -kai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190206/062c44fa/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]