[address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Paul Hoogsteder
paul at meanie.nl
Wed Jul 20 10:36:23 CEST 2011
It looks like RIPE NCC does the same thing (assigning 1 block and "reserving" the next three) with IPv6 PI blocks: ripencc|CZ|ipv6|2001:67c:22d0::|48|20110531|assigned ripencc|EU|ipv6|2001:67c:22d4::|48|20110531|assigned ripencc|SI|ipv6|2001:67c:22d8::|48|20110601|assigned ripencc|NL|ipv6|2001:67c:22dc::|48|20110601|assigned Best regards, Paul Hoogsteder Breedband Delft/Meanie > Download the "delegated-ripencc-extended-*" file from > http://albatross.ripe.net/delegated-extended/ > > cat delegated-ripencc-extended-20110718 | grep ipv6 | cut -d\| -f4,5,7 | > sort | more > *|19392 > 2001:1400::|32|allocated > 2001:1401::|32|available > 2001:1402::|31|available > 2001:1404::|30|available > 2001:1408::|32|allocated > 2001:1409::|32|available > 2001:140a::|31|available > 2001:140c::|30|available > 2001:1410::|32|allocated > 2001:1411::|32|available > 2001:1412::|31|available > 2001:1414::|30|available > 2001:1418::|32|allocated > 2001:1419::|32|available > 2001:141a::|31|available > 2001:141c::|30|available > 2001:1420::|32|allocated > > kix > > > > > David Conrad > <drc at virtualiz > ed.org> Para > Enviado por: Jasper Jans > ipv6-wg-admin@ <Jasper.Jans at espritxb.nl> > ripe.net cc > ipv6-wg at ripe.net, > "address-policy-wg at ripe.net > 20/07/2011 Working Group" > 10:09 <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> > Asunto > Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: > [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 > allocation (ripe-512 issues) > Clasificación > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 2011, at 9:38 PM, Jasper Jans wrote: >> The RIPE currently reserves a /29 for every initial /32. > > Is this really true? When the RIRs and IANA were discussing the /12 > allocations, the RIRs claimed one of the reasons they needed /12s was > because they would all be using the "bisection method" of allocation to > remove the need for reservation. It would be sad to hear RIPE still hadn't > followed through. > > Regards, > -drc > > _____________________________________________________________________ > Mensaje analizado y protegido por Telefonica Grandes Clientes > > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]