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]/
[ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Thu Dec 1 22:54:44 CET 2005
Elmar K. Bins wrote: [ ... ] > But you have distracted me from the matter at hand, so I repeat again that > the /24 filters are not in place to filter out small PI blocks. It's not > nice, it's not perfect, but it's there. So any authority that gives out > networks (hello RIPE!) should consider everything longer than a /24 as > "non routable", and not give out such blocks as v4 PI. >From ripe-357 ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/pi-requestsupport.html ), Supporting Notes for the Provider Independent (PI) Assignment Request Form "You must ensure that the End User understands and accepts that PI address space may be more difficult or more expensive to route than PA address space and then confirm this in the "confirmation:" field. You can find more details on the consequences and disadvantages of PI address space in the "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE region" (see above for url)." > Cheers, > Elmi. > >
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]