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] 2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Thu Oct 16 16:47:51 CEST 2008
On 15/10/2008 5:42, "michael.dillon at bt.com" <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote: >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-06.html > > I wonder why this policy doesn't require the LIRs to have an > IPv6 allocation before they apply for one of the last few > IPv4 blocks? It might happen that ISPs in an area could provide customers adequate IPv6 space but not IPv4 space. In such a situation it might be necessary to get a block of IPv4 from the RIPE NCC but not be necessary to get a block of IPv6. It seems unreasonable to require people to take resources they do not want or need. Regards, Leo Vegoda
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]