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] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Sun Aug 7 19:21:46 CEST 2011
On 8/7/11 2:29 PM, Jasper Jans wrote: > I support this proposal. +1 This just means we remove the need to lie anymore to IPRAs about multihoming, if small/medium organization wants their IPv6 block and do not plan to actually be multihomed. :) Actually, with this we remove the only reason why NAT66 could exist :) Get your PI and don't translate addresses, if you change provider you are still good. Cheers, Jan Zorz
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]