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] Re: 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 ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Fri Apr 22 21:02:31 CEST 2011
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 01:02:59PM +0000, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Actually - it should become cheaper - effortwise - because the NCC can drop > the superficial and ineffective "checks" made after assignment, to assess if > the MH requirements were or still are met. And it doesn't have to consider "need" regarding the amount of space requested, if not more than /48. And even if more, the rules are far simpler than with IPv4 where each and every address has to be justified. So in fact, the cost for NCC to process+maintain IPv6 PI should be (significantly?) less than with IPv4 PI. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- 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 ]