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] Proposal 2010-2
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Chris Grundemann
cgrundemann at gmail.com
Mon Nov 1 15:52:44 CET 2010
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 08:28, Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist at gmail.com> wrote: <snip> > There is not absolutely perfect solution. If you can improve upon the > proposal, I am sure everyone would be excited to discuss your > thoughts. The only true soft-landing solution is to tie IPv6 deployment directly to IPv4 allocation. Organizations which are not deploying IPv6 along with IPv4 in their networks are not efficiently utilizing their IPv4 addresses and should not be allowed to get more. ~Chris > In any case, I think there is a broad consensus that doing it this > way is better than doing nothing. > > > Richard > > -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]