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] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Wed Oct 5 12:12:40 CEST 2005
RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator wrote: > PDP Number: 2005-08 > Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy Proposing a bit of word-smithing: " Rationale: [ ... ] As a consequence of that, LIRs will need far more address space, depleting the available pool of addresses at an accelerated rate and reducing the lifetime of the IPv6 protocol." Proposed replacement text: As a consequence of that, LIRs and ISPs will distribute (to End Sites) IPv6 addresses in blocks much greater than presumably necessary for an average end site - thus depleting the pool of unallocated or unassigned IPv6 addresses at an accelerated speed. Why? I have a particular problem with the assertion that the "lifetime" of the protocol is reduced! The protocol itself will remain valid anyway, we would just have to modify the procedures for distributing the addresses. And the inclusion of "unallocated or unassigned" IPv6 addresses: because formally the pool of available addresses is of fixed size. Thanks for consideration! Wilfried.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]