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] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tim Streater
tim.streater at dante.org.uk
Thu Nov 17 17:23:54 CET 2005
At 16:15 17/11/2005, Marc van Selm wrote: [NATO scenario] >I can't help feeling this rule is written for ISPs but will be counter >productive for NATO and organisations with a very large privately operated >enterprice network. I also can't help the feeling that its a paper tiger. So >isn't there another way to achieve the same result as this rule was intended >for? > >Any views? It should go. We manage a transit network connecting Middle-eastern and North African national research networks (NRENs). The aim is that this grouping go independent of us at some point and manage everything themselves. I was able to get v4 PI space for this from RIPE, but the 200 rule appears to rule out these guys using v6. Oh well. -- Tim
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]