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 ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Fri Nov 18 14:58:18 CET 2011
On 16/11/2011 11:01, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > On 11/16/11 10:03 AM, Sascha Lenz wrote: >> Why is everyone focussing on the 6RD part? > > No idea. Just one of incentives (initial one). Let's stop beating around the bush: everyone is focussing on 6rd because if it weren't for 6rd, there would be no requirement for 2011-04 - simply because there are no other ipv6 migration mechanisms around which a) require vast amounts of extra v6 address space and b) look like they might actually work. As a separate issue, the policy should not be worded to mention 6rd. However, we need to acknowledge that the primary motivation for this proposal is all about enabling 6rd. Nick
- 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 ]