This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Havard Eidnes
he at uninett.no
Wed Jan 7 17:26:20 CET 2004
> > 1. Accepting a number of IPv4/24 and IPv6/32 allocations for > > critical network infrastructures does not align with the > > traditional address conservation efforts. With anycasting it > > is very likely that only a few addresses from the entire > > assignment would be used. > > Conservation is not an issue regarding IPv6. ...within an address block, this is true. However, what is being talked about here is "globally routeable chunks of addresses", and there conservation *is* an issue, since nothing really changes with respect to routing with IPv6 compared to IPv4. Regards, - Håvard
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]