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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Assignment transfer among LIR
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Assignment transfer among LIR
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Assignment transfer among LIR
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
James Blessing
james.blessing at despres.co.uk
Tue May 22 15:43:34 CEST 2012
On 22 May 2012 14:33, Pascal Gloor <pascal.gloor at finecom.ch> wrote: >>Why not just use IPv6... > > Using IPv6 does not remove the need of v4, you know that. Plus, my > proposal is not about using more v4, but just about keeping the same > number of v4 and being able to change ISP. Transforming the PA into PI and > allowing the transfer could also be a solution but I don't like it due to > possible massive deaggregation. Really, isn't CATV a closed access network that you have control off? Could you do 6to4 (or something similar) at the border if you need to access v4 content? Or have I misunderstood what you are doing? J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Assignment transfer among LIR
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Assignment transfer among LIR
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]