[address-policy-wg] RIPE-552 Impact of extending initial allocation from /32 to /29
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE-552 Impact of extending initial allocation from /32 to /29
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] FW: [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Octavio Alfageme
oalfageme at euskaltel.com
Tue Oct 9 13:09:53 CEST 2012
Ouchhh!!! I'm terribly sorry. ;-) Thank you, Sander. Octavio -----Mensaje original----- De: Sander Steffann [mailto:sander at steffann.nl] Enviado el: martes, 09 de octubre de 2012 13:08 Para: Octavio Alfageme CC: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE-552 Impact of extending initial allocation from /32 to /29 Hi, > According to RIPE552 LIRs may easily request the extension of its IPv6 > /32 initial allocation up to a /29. However, if we take a look at the > reservation made for some initial /32 allocations, we find that it is > /30. For instance > (ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest): > > ripencc|FR|ipv6|2a00:7900::|32|20110214|allocated > ripencc|NL|ipv6|2a00:7940::|32|20120118|allocated > ripencc|RU|ipv6|2a00:7980::|32|20110509|allocated > ripencc|DE|ipv6|2a00:79c0::|32|20120119|allocated > ripencc|NO|ipv6|2a00:7a00::|32|20110120|allocated > ripencc|GB|ipv6|2a00:7a40::|32|20120119|allocated > ripencc|AT|ipv6|2a00:7a80::|32|20110509|allocated > ripencc|RU|ipv6|2a00:7ac0::|32|20120119|allocated > ripencc|ES|ipv6|2a00:7b00::|32|20110214|allocated > > In case any of this LIRs wants to request the extension to /29, would he > receive a 'brand new' /29 and will have to give its original /32 back? I > would be grateful if you could clarify me the process. No need to say > that my company is one of the LIRs affected by this situation. You're one nibble off :-) Those /32s can all be expanded to /26s even. For example 2a00:7900::/26 is 2a00:7900:: to 2a00:793f:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff. So expanding such a /32 to a /29 is no problem at all. - Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE-552 Impact of extending initial allocation from /32 to /29
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] FW: [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]