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] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Sat May 7 09:39:46 CEST 2011
On Sat, 7 May 2011, Tore Anderson wrote: > Well, anyone can easily justify the need for an IPv6 /48 as that's the > minimum assignment size. The minimum IPv4 assignment size, on the other > hand, is smaller than a /24, which means that an applicant would require > 100s of devices on his network in order to to qualify for an IPv4 PI > assignment that can be actually routed on the internet. Wow, I thought <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05> was already passed to take care of that. Seems I was wrong again. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]