24 Oct
2011
24 Oct
'11
10:41 a.m.
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
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.
Haven't we already reserved the encompassing /29 per initial /32 the past few years? Does this proposal suggest that a /26 should be reserved for an initial allocation of /29? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se