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/
[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tim Streater
tim.streater at dante.org.uk
Mon Nov 14 14:41:48 CET 2005
At 11:19 14/11/2005, Jørgen Hovland wrote: >So we are back at the beginning; >I say no to anycast PI for TLDs/ccTLDs. I don't believe it is a special case >so it doesn't need a special policy. TLDs/ccTLDs could/should however be >used as an argument to allow v6 PI prefixes in general. >V6 PI compared to v4 surely is a showstopper for many, or at least for some. It's a showstopper for us on one of the networks we manage. We can't get V6 PI for it like we could v4 PI. -- Tim
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]