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] New version of 2006-1 IPv6 PI Policy Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New version of 2006-1 IPv6 PI Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
lists-ripe at c4inet.net
lists-ripe at c4inet.net
Mon Oct 27 17:14:15 CET 2008
Hi Jordi, all, On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 05:49:49PM +0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Typically, such organisations will require the PI assignment to become > Multihomed as happens for IPv4, but there may be other reason behind > requests. This policy proposal is only trying to cover this type of PI > assignments (for example data centers which are not an ISP, or content > providers). What about a more radical proposal, ie. eliminating the LIR/End User distinction altogether? Since so many LIRs are, ipso facto, end-users (as Jordi points out above) the distinction becomes more and more historical anyway. Obviously, this would not be workable for v4 space, but I really see no reason not to have just one type of allocation in ipv6. This would also completely eliminate the need for PIv6. Regards, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New version of 2006-1 IPv6 PI Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]