Hi, On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:29:15AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
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.
So you're proposing to adjust the proposal for a minimum size of /20? It's a tough fit inside RIPE's /12, but I always thought that was too narrow-minded in the first place. With a /20 per LIR, RIPE would need a /7 now and a /6 soonish - which would be nicely utilizing the available space inside FP001... Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279