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: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Wed Dec 7 11:37:46 CET 2005
> "Too late" at least for a full solution. This is just another suggestion > that might be helpful for preventing some amount of global prefixes (see > below), but not god's own solution to the problem. The world does not need full solutions. In regard to IP addressing policy, it is sufficient for the RIRs to start doing things more wisely. If the RIRs would open up another 1/8th of the IPv6 address space for geotop allocations then they would no longer be blocking this solution. It is not up to the RIRs to tell ISPs how to operate their networks, i.e. the RIRs cannot say that ISPs must accept announcements of PI /26s allocated by the RIRs. The ISPs are in control of what they do. But, in the area of geo-topological aggregation of announcements, ISPs are currently prevented from acting because the RIRs won't give out geotop allocations. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]