[ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
gvandeve at cisco.com
Tue Jul 19 11:36:30 CEST 2011
Inline: GV> -----Original Message----- From: Sander Steffann [mailto:sander at steffann.nl] Sent: 19 July 2011 11:33 To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) Cc: Jasper Jans; Ivan Pepelnjak; Jan Zorz @ Go6.si; Yannis Nikolopoulos; ipv6-wg at ripe.net; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues) Hi Gunter, > GV> An issue I see with this policy is that it does not support > pro-active address planning for the longer term and may end up in > fragmented non-summarizable address space within an organization. Mainly > because the newly required address space will be different block and > will as result require new address planning policy within the > organization itself. I don't understand your comment. The idea of the policy proposal is to automatically grow the existing /32 to a /29. That results in a single /29 for an ISP. GV> That would be perfect.. I was just reading the comments sequentially... and just assumed that when an ISP gets through the HD ratio stuff on his first /32, that he will gets the neighbor /32. In that case the ISP needs to make a new address plan policy, which would not be as clean as if he would have had a /31 to start off with. With the /29 there would be no issue at all on this matter. G/
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]