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] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Fri Apr 15 11:33:31 CEST 2011
Hi, > I think this should be amended to clarify that PI space can be > assigned to employees, customers etc. independent of device ownership, > using services like RA, reflecting the previous discussion on this > list. To keep things manageable let's not combine different things in one proposal. I understand that there are many people who would like to 'no sub-assignments' part of the PI policy but that is a different issue than the multihoming requirement. Let's discuss that separately. Thanks, Sander APWG co-chair
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]