Michiel, I support this proposal. * Simple * Deterministic * Very little impact on final date for existing LIR (8 days earlier if we take the 2008 IPv4 address consumption in RIPE) * Reduced impact on routing table size (+ fixed prefix length) * Easy for RIPE NCC to implement. Question : what about PI ? Marc Neuckens Belgacom
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Michiel Klaver Sent: 14 September 2009 15:16 To: Sander Steffann; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi Michiel,
I would suggest we wait until we hit the final /12 and assign those addresses as fixed /24 blocks only. Big enough for new entrants to setup their IPv4 network and communicate with the 'legacy' internet of today. Too small for the rest of us and force everyone to dive into the deep with IPv6.
If I understand you correctly this would be something like proposed in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy- wg/2009/msg00720.html, with a reserved /12 for initial allocations of a fixed /24 size.
Or do you mean something different?
Thanks, Sander
Hi Sander,
that indeed is the same, except for the size of the reserved assignments. With a /12 divided into fixed /24 prefixes you will create a pool of 4096 available /24 blocks. Given the current RIPE LIR member count of 5000+ and still growing, that amount of 4096 /24 blocks should be sufficient for a number of years.
With kind regards,
Michiel Klaver IT Professional
**** DISCLAIMER **** http://www.belgacom.be/maildisclaimer