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 New Policy Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 Proposal Accepted (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ahmed Abu-Abed
ahmed at tamkien.com
Tue Oct 25 09:44:56 CEST 2011
Interesting to see a v6-in-v4 access protocol triggering a significant change in allocation policy. As 6rd gobbles up 32 bits for the v4 address at the consumers v6 assignment, there is an alternative in RFC 5572 (TSP) that presents v6-in-v4 access on CPEs without such a need. And TSP can be implemented as a software client so LIRs do not need to change the CPEs to roll out IPv6 to end users. -Ahmed ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:28:47 +0200 From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan at go6.si> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Message-ID: <4EA5BC6F.90005 at go6.si> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 10/24/11 7:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > why are we screwing around? let's go straight to a /16 or at least a > /20. it would not be fair to legacy v6 allocations :) can only expand to /29 without renumbering :S cheers, Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 Proposal Accepted (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]