[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Mon Oct 24 19:29:15 CEST 2011
>> I'm conviced a /29 will be very helpful for proper addressing plans >> and I'm strongly supporting this proposal. > Isn't that almost the same that was said when we went from /35 to /32, > and now again when we go to /29? > Nothing wrong in that, the world keep growing so it's just fair the > address-space grow with it. why are we screwing around? let's go straight to a /16 or at least a /20. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]