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]/
[address-policy-wg] Re: IPv6 PI
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elmar K. Bins
elmi at 4ever.de
Mon Nov 21 17:27:02 CET 2005
lea.roberts at stanford.edu (Lea Roberts) wrote: > this was the original ARIN proposal 2005-1, which could not reach > consensus. The last time around it was re-worked to add more restrictions > and again failed because other folks felt it was too restrictive. There > are actually two issues: > > 1) the high cost of renumbering in a large organization Why should they renumber, if it's their own block? > 2) multi-homing for network reliability and resiliency Where's the problem here? Someone who can afford and establish a case for _real_ multihoming can get an ASN and thus an assignment. Like was already said - loosening the ASN handout rules needs changes in assignment rules, too. But that's for years to come. Yours, Elmi. -- "Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren." (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2 at ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>) --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]