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] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Wed Nov 16 12:01:48 CET 2011
On 11/16/11 10:03 AM, Sascha Lenz wrote: > That's what this proposal is about in the first place (my interpretation?) - just mentioning 6RD > as ONE possible feature that would benefit from it. The proposal also mentions more bits for proper > subnetting/routing design for example. +1 > Why is everyone focussing on the 6RD part? No idea. Just one of incentives (initial one). Cheers, Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]