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] De-aggregation of assigned IPv6 prefixes?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 prefixes / PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeroen Massar
jeroen at unfix.org
Tue Dec 6 00:46:57 CET 2005
Hi, http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html#initial_criteria reads amongst others: 8<------------------- c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it will assign /48s by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation -------------------->8 According to the above, after the /48, can one announce more specifics or should/must one not do this? (*) The RIPE Registry allows registering more specific route6 objects. If this is allowed, then why is the above parrt, after '/48', then included in the policy? What is the exact intention of the sentence? Greets, Jeroen *= of course one is lord of their own network and thus can announce whatever one wants and just hope/agree that others accept it. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 238 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20051206/d6f64752/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 prefixes / PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]