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 ]
Pekka Savola
pekkas at netcore.fi
Thu Nov 17 20:05:22 CET 2005
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Tim Streater wrote: > The other network is one we are *currently* managing, EUMEDCONNECT. > It is for the Middle-eastern and North African NRENs. The intention > here is that we expect these NRENs to set up their own entity to > manage it, and go their own way, in which case we gift them the > infrastructure, which in this case has to include the address space. > We can do that for v4 as I got PI space for that. Its v6 that is the > problem. Did you actually *try* getting a separate /32 for this? RIPE NCC is known to be very reasonable towards transit networks, and I could bet good money you could get an allocation without a hitch. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
- 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 ]