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
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Florian Fuessl
flo at degnet.de
Fri Dec 9 04:25:20 CET 2011
Sascha Lenz wrote Dez. 09 2011 - 00:23: > Hi, > > thank you for carefully choosing your actions and wording about this, as > a community member i appreciate that *thumbsup* ... > > [...] > > I'm still happy to consider any new proposal how to do things better with PI > from anyone. But keeping PIv6 different from PIv4 just isn't compatible with reality right now, > and there are no signs of any real downsides. > +1 it's irreproducible that it's currently not possible to assign PIv6 for recipients which can apply for PIv4. Why are we putting spokes in sb.'s wheels on moving forward to IPv6 at the moment? > -- > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards > > Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] > Senior System- & Network Architect Best regards, Florian Fuessl
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]