[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 ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Wed Jul 20 18:49:48 CEST 2011
On 7/20/11 6:30 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote: > Hi Andrea, > > Your wrote: > >> According to our experience only LIRs that needed a block much >> larger than /29 found it worth the effort to return their /32. > > I don't know how I should understand you statement. Should I take it > to mean that the policy is impeding LIRs who would otherwise qualify > for larger allocations from getting them because they will have to > renumber their whole network? Or something else? Idea... If you are LIR that had no clue and got /32 but now when you know that you need more and can justify that, you could ask RIPE-NCC IPRA to get back your original /32, start looking into your justification under initial alloc policy and if you justify for anything up to (including) /29, IPRA allocates you justified block starting exactly where "returned" /32 started. Problem solved, no need to renumber. Do we need to put this into policy (if accepted) or would BCP work (as this can be best current practice :) )? Cheers, Jan Zorz
- 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 ]