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 ]
michael.dillon at bt.com
michael.dillon at bt.com
Wed May 5 15:26:32 CEST 2010
> > - With IPv6 we would like to offer a client (collocation) > at least a > > /112 (with PI this isn't allowed if I'm correctly informed) > (Note that you can't do this with IPv4 PI either, giving > customers in your colocation space a, say, /29 from your IPv4 > PI range) Sure you can. People do this all the time. "Give" just means that the PI recipient allows their customer to use a /29. There is no transfer of ownership because there is no ownership. RIPE rules only cover "assignment" of addresses to customers, not "giving", "using", "delegating" or any other term. The only people who really understand the distinctions between assignments and allocations, are the people who deal directly with RIPE. For everyone else, the world is many shades of grey. --Michael Dillon
- 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 ]