4 Jan
2012
4 Jan
'12
8:01 p.m.
On 02/01/2012 14:10, Emilio Madaio wrote:
- The proposed new section 5.1.2 was reworded - Section 5.7 was not removed but it was reworded
two issues here: 1. I don't agree with this revised version for the reasons outlined in:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2011-November/0065...
specifically, there is still no justification required to move from /32 to /29. 2. if the plan is to use the entire /29 for the purposes of 6rd (or other transition tech) - so that you can assign up to a /62 for each 6rd end-user, then what address space does the LIR use for the rest of its allocation requirements? I.e. will another allocation will be required for traditional ipv6 assignments? Nick