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] 2010-07 New Policy Proposal (Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-07 New Policy Proposal (Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-07 New Policy Proposal (Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Wed Oct 27 14:04:24 CEST 2010
On 27 okt 2010, at 13:15, niels=apwg at bakker.net wrote: > * andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) [Thu 21 Oct 2010, 16:40 CEST]: >> On 19 Oct 2010, at 16:00, Emilio Madaio wrote: >>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-07.html > [..] >> >> Now that IPv6 PI is available to all networks, in addition to Internet Exchange Points, perhaps we do not need to have a special policy for IXPs at all, but I see possible future value in IXPs sitting inside 2001:7f8/32, so I think it should remain. > > IPv6 PI won't work for IXPs as numbers need to be handed out to connected parties, which is not allowed for PIv6 (in contrast to PIv4 under INFRA-AW). As long as it's one address per customer out of a shared block it's allowed as being infrastructure. What you are not allowed to do is to assign a /64 to each customer, but I don't see a reason for an IXP to do that anyway. MarcoH
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-07 New Policy Proposal (Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-07 New Policy Proposal (Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]