All,
I'd like to strongly support the proposal as well.
To be fully honest here I've not yet encountered a single adress planning
exercise where we (which included organizations with +300K users and 700K IP
addresses in their IPAM database) didn't easily get along
with a /32. I hence initially
-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf
Of john.coll...@bit.admin.ch
Sent: 22 May 2015 10:46
Organisations may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 by
submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Roger Jørgensen rog...@gmail.com wrote:
Are work being done in several forums on interplanetary communication,
both with thoughts on delay and on address space. AFAIK some of it is
already in production to using IPv6... wish my memory worked today so
I could
Dear WG,
As one of the authors behind 2015-03 please accept my apologies for not being
able to attend today's AP WG session, and a particularly apology (and thanks!)
to Alexander for letting him have to take the virtual stage and face the
questions by himself!
I would like to respond to a
Hi,
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:18:15PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
And that's actually something we need to keep in mind when setting policy
today.
Actually, I am (and I'm having an wary eye on the community :-) ).
But I *do* the math. We're inside the very first /12 ever assigned to
the
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] a...@c4inet.net wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 03:58:46PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
As Nick states, I'd be interested to see a real life addressing plan
which
needed more than this amount of bit space. I'd actually be interested to
see a
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] a...@c4inet.net wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 01:28:39PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
Apparently, my point was not very reader friendly, so I'll try again:
Routing-wise, someone with 64 billion billion billion addresses, have
about
16
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 01:28:39PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
Apparently, my point was not very reader friendly, so I'll try again:
Routing-wise, someone with 64 billion billion billion addresses, have about
16 billion billion ways to route the entire IPv4 internet, within the
address space
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
We’re to date only allocating from 1/8th of the overall IPv6 address space.
Which is actually an immensely huge part of it.
There’s 7/8ths remaining in which policy can be changed, if required.
Yes, fortunately.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:09:16PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
Well, yes, that's why I first wrote This change makes sense
??? I support it. -- Jan
Oh yes, so you did. Should have read further up in the thread...
cheers,
Sascha Luck
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Mathew Newton
mathew.newton...@official.mod.uk wrote:
Hi Jan,
Hi again, Matthew, and thanks for answering.
-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On
Behalf Of Jan Ingvoldstad
Sent: 12 May 2015
-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf
Of Jan Ingvoldstad
Sent: 12 May 2015 14:18
Hi again, Matthew, and thanks for answering.
No problem at all - it is good to have this sort of open discussion and whilst
it risks drifting
Hi,
On 12 May 2015, at 14:18, Jan Ingvoldstad frett...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Mathew Newton
mathew.newton...@official.mod.uk mailto:mathew.newton...@official.mod.uk
wrote:
Hi Jan,
Hi again, Matthew, and thanks for answering.
-Original Message-
An: Address Policy Working Group
Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment
Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
On 28 April 2015 at 13:00, Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net wrote:
The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial IPv6
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A proposed change to the RIPE Document IPv6 Address Allocation and
Assignment Policy now is open for discussion.
The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial IPv6
allocations larger
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
Slightly off-track, but you made me curious. Given the number of /29s and
/32s available in FP001, and the potential numbers of LIRs in the future
(like, things explode and we'll see 100.000 LIRs) - where do you see the
On Mon, 11 May 2015, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
As Nick states, I'd be interested to see a real life addressing plan
which needed more than this amount of bit space. I'd actually be
interested to see a real life addressing plan that needed a /32 bit
address space, where the need isn't constructed
Hi Nick,
-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf
Of Nick Hilliard
Sent: 11 May 2015 14:08
On 11/05/2015 11:10, Gert Doering wrote:
I see /32 as default, up to /29 if you ask as very reasonable middle
ground...
/29
+1 support.
Best Regards,
Carlos Friaças
On Thu, 7 May 2015, Carlos Gómez Muñoz wrote:
Dear all,
We, seap.es, the LIR requesting IPv6 space for the government authorities in
Spain, are facing the same problem as Switzerland.
Therefore, I support the proposed policy change.
Best
Dear colleagues,
A proposed change to the RIPE Document IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment
Policy now is open for discussion.
The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial IPv6
allocations larger than a /29. The RIPE NCC would consider additional aspects
beyond only the
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 02:00:40PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial
IPv6 allocations larger than a /29. The RIPE NCC would consider
additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and
extent of the organisation's
21 matches
Mail list logo
