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 ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Wed Oct 5 13:11:03 CEST 2005
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> Gert, I think you are missing my point. Our products may issue max N addresses per link from dhcp defined by the product specifications. Can I allocate 10 IPv6 addresses to a customer from our own pool, or does the customer need its own record in the DB ? If so, _must_ this allocation be a /64 even though the customer will only use 10 addresses? [ ] Yes. [ ] No. [ ] Don't know. Please don't bring stateless autoconfiguration into this discussion. We are not running it. > > Security has *nothing* to do with the number of IPv6 addresses - > "security against *what*?". > Security has to do with everything. Never think otherwise. Cheers, Joergen Hovland
- 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 ]