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 ]
Masataka Ohta
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Wed Aug 10 13:46:47 CEST 2011
James Blessing wrote: > Since with IPv6 you are unlikely to be using the IP addresses for > anything in day to day use (unlike v4 where you still see lots of > manual configuration) The reality is that stateless auto configuration is not really stateless and no better than DHCP. > and there are explicit functions from an end > device to use multiple IP addresses it makes sense to change end user > configuration to an automated function. As is proven by hosts with an IPv4 and an IPv6 addresses, IPv6 does not support hosts with multiple addresses better than IPv4. Masataka Ohta
- 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 ]