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/[email protected]/
[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 ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Mon Jun 21 21:04:45 CEST 2004
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 08:09:14PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Why not compare with the IPv4 allocations ?
Why *do*? What relevance has IPv4 to IPv6 policy?
(But actually, the current size of an ISPs network *is* taken into account
when considering larger-than-/32 allocations)
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
- 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 ]