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 14:58:58 CEST 2005
----- Original Message ----- From: "leo vegoda" <leo at ripe.net> > I apologise if this is moot, but an answer would really be appreciated. > This becomes a problem with private users as it already is today. We > can't store data about every single private user into a public database, > and there might also be issues regarding the privacy act. It breaks the > "true spirit of IPv6"; "have enough addresses, and no questions asked". >Would there be any real value in registering private users in Whois? How >likely is it that the end user could provide assistance to whoever >contacted them? So I can internally allocate 10 IPv6 addresses from our RIPE allocated /64, "IPv6 customer DSL pool", and give it to the private customer? I don't have to assign the customer itself a direct allocation? Thank you for your input. 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 ]