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/
[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 ]
Tim Chown
tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Mon Dec 5 17:34:19 CET 2005
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 02:38:06PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > A question which most likely only RIPE NCC can answer: has there ever > been a LIR who requested an IPv6 allocation and got rejected? > > LIR's are usually already have 200+ customers, let alone in planning. > > The people who are complaining (and not proposing what could be done) on > this list don't want to be an LIR in the first place. > Removing the 200 rule thus would not have much effect in all those cases. There are certainly organisations that cannot meet the 200 rule that have a /32.. RIPE-NCC is not inflexible. Tim::/1
- 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 ]