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 ]
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Fri Jun 18 21:13:24 CEST 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-06-17, at 22.05, Randy Bush wrote: >> *I* always thought the primary goal was to get IPv6 deployed... > > i would think that the primary goal was to move the customers' > packets. if they want us to move ipv6, them it's moving ipv6. > we are concerned that it is deployABLE, because customers may > want it. > > but our job is not to get ipv6 deployed. Good point. If it where, people might realize that we forgot a bunch of stuff in IPv6. Such as multihoming...:-) But, I *think* that Gerts point was that our job is to make it as easy as possible to prepare for when (if) customers want IPv6. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQNM+1qarNKXTPFCVEQLuoQCfYPlzoEQdi67Luz5CzCjoE948RKwAoIGH EglO6L5tXz6ei1XKAGle2SGO =HnZO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- 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 ]