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/
[ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mohacsi Janos
mohacsi at niif.hu
Thu Feb 24 16:37:08 CET 2011
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:48:05PM +0200, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote: >> I am new to the Address Policy WG and this seems like quite an old discussion. I endorse assigning a /32 to LIRs regardless of the IPv6 access method they use. > > Uh, what exactly are we discussing here? > > Just to make this very clear: > > Any RIPE LIR can get a /32 IPv6 PA right away, just by asking. > > Only if you want *multiple* /32, or "bigger than a /32", this is where > it gets tricky (multiple distinct /32s are not possible under the > current policy, "bigger than a /32" needs documentation that you have > the necessary amount of customers). > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair Yes Agreed. I am against the idea, that 6RD deployment automatically grant another /32 allocation. Best Regards, Janos
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]