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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck
ripe at c4inet.net
Tue May 4 18:35:07 CEST 2010
Hi, On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 05:22:43PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > "if people can use PI to give single IPv6 addresses to their end > customers, we might see DSL deployments with single address + NAT, > and this not something I want to see"...) Me neither. Maybe change the policy to require assigning min /64 in conjunction with making it assignable? > Gert rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]