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] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jon Lawrence
jon at lawrence.org.uk
Thu Jun 17 12:50:29 CEST 2004
On Thursday 17 June 2004 10:20, Pekka Savola wrote: > > I saw that -- but I don't see *any* justification for this > interpretation. Remember, the goal is to require 200 assignments to > *other* organizations, not be satisfied that you can make 200 > assignemnts to your internal network, or 100 assignments to your > internal network and 100 to other organizations! And this is part of the problem. We won't be rolling IPv6 out ot 200 customers any time soon. So we can't get an allocation. Thus we can't run trials with IPv6. I really fail to see the reason behind the 200 other organisation rule - perhaps somee one would like to explain the logic. Jon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]