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] 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 ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Tue Apr 19 14:50:13 CEST 2011
Tim Chown wrote: > On 15 Apr 2011, at 11:28, boggits wrote: > > >>On 15 April 2011 10:22, Emilio Madaio <emadaio at ripe.net> wrote: >> >>>A proposed change to the RIPE Document ripe-512,"IPv6 Address >>>Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. >> >>>You can find the full proposal at: >>> >>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 >> >>Why should a company require PIv6 addressing when the task of >>renumbering within IPv6 space has become so simple? > > > I'm interested: how simple do you think it has become? In particular, when most of the (originally conceived and RFC'd) support functionality in DNS - has been removed in the meantime... Wilfried. > Tim
- 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 ]