> But even in 2000 the policy was and still is:
> /128 for really a single device
> /64 if you know for sure that only one single subnet will
> ever be allocated.
> /48 for every other case (smart bet, should be used per default)
I believe this policy is changing. The new text is: "End
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Owen DeLong wrote:
Do you mean the staff at the RIR?
Do you mean the RIR Boards, Advisory Councils, or other representative
governing bodies?
Both these. The few times I have ventured to start emailing on a policy wg
emailing list, I have gotten the notion that people
So my wondering is basically, if we say we have millions of end
users right now and we want to give them a /56 each, and this is no
problem, then the policy is correct. We might not have them all IPv6
activated in 2 years which is the RIR planning horizon. I do concur
with other posters
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote:
you got a /32 in 2000 and you had 10k customers then you should be fine.
If you already had 200k customers or so and then only requested a /32
though I think one can definitely state you made a big booboo.
From what I have been told by my colleagues,
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2007 5:03 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>
>>> "new" as in "We already have one, but we actually didn't really know
>>> what we where requesting, now we need more"
>> We got our current block in
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
[..]
> The world tends to change in 7 years. You seem to like bashing people
> for not knowing future policy and changes 7 year ahead of time, which I
> think it quite sad.
Not intended that way. What I was really surprised, and critical, of
though is you mentioning that
On Dec 19, 2007 5:03 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> > "new" as in "We already have one, but we actually didn't really know
> > what we where requesting, now we need more"
>
> We got our current block in 2000 (or earlier, I don't
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Can I read from this that you never actually read any of the $RIR policy
documentation about getting IPv6 address space even though you did
request a /32 before, clearly without thinking about it?
I never requested IPv6 space personally. I work with r
On 19 Dec 2007, at 12:24, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Andy Davidson wrote:
[..]
From the RIPE perspective, there are seven "empty" /32s between
my /32 and the next allocation.
I imagine this is fully intentional, and allows the NCC to grow my
v6 address pool, without growing my footprint in the v
Changing subject for these replies which will definitely be a bit on the
quite mean side... no offense but start reading for once. Next to that
there are also LIR courses which cover all of this.
(see other mail for /56 for end-user-sites, /48 for end-business-sites)
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
[..
10 matches
Mail list logo
