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] 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 ]
Andrzej Dopierała
undefine at aramin.net
Fri Aug 19 23:46:51 CEST 2011
W dniu 19.08.2011 15:05, Turchanyi Geza pisze: > Hi Erik, > > 2011/8/19 Erik Bais <ebais at a2b-internet.com > <mailto:ebais at a2b-internet.com>> > > Hi Andrzej & Turchanyi, > > That is a difference in that respect between IPv4 and IPv6. > > End-customers that request IPv4 PI might find themselves after a > while in a situation where the initial request allocation isn't > big enough and they can and will request another prefix. > > > It would have been better and still would be better even in that case > to use only one prefix and return the original one to the RIR. It's not always so simple. When we have dns servers hardcoded in thousands machines, or when we have hosting where clients puts their domains (and we have no control on client's domains) - return any ip class is not easy. On ipv6 - there is problem with renumbering too - but there is no need to get another class - we have just one class which is big enough to end of our life ;) Regards, Andrzej -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110819/5e9767a2/attachment-0001.html>
- 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 ]