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] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
- Previous message (by thread): Keeping in reserve, was: Re: [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friacas
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Thu Sep 28 14:36:33 CEST 2006
Hello,
While I do support the general idea of PI-Assignments for IPv6 (mainly as
a way of facilitating certain networks to move into IPv6...), at the
moment i do *NOT* support this 2006-01 proposal due to some specific
wording, already mentioned by other participants.
I'm also in favour of going with /48s, and grow from there if needed.
Best Regards,
./Carlos
--------------
Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN
FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt
"Internet is just routes (196663/675), naming (millions) and... people!"
- Previous message (by thread): Keeping in reserve, was: Re: [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]