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] Re: Re: 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Wed May 27 11:22:34 CEST 2009
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:17:50AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > More importantly why are we calling those prefixes then "Provider > Aggregated"? If they are not aggregated anymore by the above change? It's "provider aggregatABLE", and the ability to aggregate ain't impedet. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]