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 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dan Luedtke
maildanrl at googlemail.com
Wed Nov 9 09:05:43 CET 2011
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Turchanyi Geza <turchanyi.geza at gmail.com> wrote: > nothing stops th IPv4 PI owners to use IPv6 PA.... - except that one has to renumber the whole network when finally (if ever) receiving PIv6 - which leads to about double costs In fact, I have a mixed network (PIv4, PAv6) at the moment, but I am still wondering why I cannot get assigned PIv6. What changed? regards, Dan -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]