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] Revised 2006-01 set back to Discussion Phase (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2006-01 set back to Discussion Phase (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Tue Dec 2 11:02:20 CET 2008
On 25 Nov 2008, at 18:20, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Ana Matic wrote: >> We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your >> comments >> to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 23 December 2008. I support this proposal. > - while a requirement for multihoming is useful, it should be made > clear > during implementation that this is not necessarily a requirement for > multihoming using ASNs and BGP on the public Internet I agree with Nick. Andy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2006-01 set back to Discussion Phase (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]