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] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Wed Aug 10 12:34:26 CEST 2011
Turchanyi Geza wrote:
> Hi Jasper,
[...]
> The policy allowing Provider Independent allocation might be revoked later
> on and if it is revoked then ALL PI holder not fullfilling the new policy
> will be requested to return their PI address space and renumber to PA
> address space within 2 years.
>
> What do you think about this?
Maybe easy in some (tech-savvy playground) pockets of the net,
but certainly not going to fly in some (many?) pretty stable and/or complex
environments. One example: health services area.
I'd even venture to say that it would actually be completely contrary to why
many organisations opt(ed) for PI...
> Thanks,
>
> Géza
Wilfried
PS: maybe slightly OT, but why was number portability introduced and has become
quite popular in the telephone system?
Renumbering a phone is "easy", isn't it ;-)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]