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 ]
Carlos Morgado
chbm at cprm.net
Mon Jun 21 11:58:28 CEST 2004
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:41:05PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: > > If we still agree that we don't want to give /32's to enterprises, toy > ISPs without any real number of customers (hey! my consulting company > has two connectivity customers as well, should I get a /32 prefix?), > or such, we have to keep in some checks. > Have we figured out how to make multihoming work without giving multihomed networks their own prefix like in v4 ? -- Carlos Morgado <chbm at cprm.net> - Internet Engineering - Phone +351 214146594 GPG key: 0x75E451E2 FP: B98B 222B F276 18C0 266B 599D 93A1 A3FB 75E4 51E2 The views expressed above do not bind my employer.
- 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 ]