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 ]
sam
sam-ml at arahant.net
Mon Aug 8 16:56:21 CEST 2011
Hi all, On Aug 8, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Cagri Yucel wrote: > > 1. End-users making false multi-homing declarations to get PI. I think removing requirement is not the solution. Another option is to ask for an evidence to ensure there is a good justification for PI use. You mean evidence as in "verify" that the PI space gets advertised via both the upstreams claimed during the requesting process? RIPE NCC is kinda strict on requiring mail contacts of the provided upstreams to eventually verify the validity of the data and I believe there's no better way to do it. -- sam
- 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 ]