[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR ipv6 Allocation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Fri Aug 20 23:15:52 CEST 2004
On 20-aug-04, at 19:57, Ray Plzak wrote: > While your comments do not address the policy proposed on the ARIN list Hm, I thought this was an IANA thing so it must be the same world wide? > In regard to your comments > I have an observation with regard to the amount of IPv4 address space > that > has been allocated to the RIRs. It is worth noting that the RIRs have > not > been allocated "around 220" /8s. Upon rereading it turns out the words didn't come out as I intended. What I meant to say was that there are some 220 /8s in total that may serve as global IPv4 unicast address space, and in the past the RIRs would get one /8 at a time, or about 0.45% of the available address space at a time. The proposed IPv6 policy wants to allocate /6s to the RIRs, which is 12.5% of the currently available global IPv6 unicast space. Now if 0.45% was workable for 10 years in IPv4, I don't see why 12.5% would be necessary in IPv6. Obviously there is some hidden goal that will be met by this policy. I think that before this policy is adopted this goal should be made explicit and there should be consensus that this is indeed an important goal.
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR ipv6 Allocation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]