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] IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Tue Feb 15 20:34:47 CET 2011
Hi, > Would you agree with me that in this scenario the use of pi space is warranted yet strictly speaking not allowed under the current policy? I don't know if this is a waranted use of PI space. The problem here is that the extra route has a global cost for everyone. This would not be neccesary if you make sure that you can easilly renumber in the future. Playing devil's advocate: why should everyone pay so that you don't have to invest in better device management? So I do understand your problem, but I don't know what the best sollution is... Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]