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] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Wed Nov 7 15:49:20 CET 2012
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 02:39:31PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 07/11/2012 14:18, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: > > But your original point was: "Because you can't multihome PA addresses." > > Yes, you can. ;-) > > > > Please make your mind about your arguments. > > You can, with the implicit agreement of the LIR who holds the allocation > and the explicit agreement of a third party provider. If either choose not > to play agree, then your multihoming plans either won't work (third party > disagrees) or can be screwed up (LIR disagrees). Either way, it's not > provider independent in any meaningful way and can lead to serious business > harm if there is a breakdown in any of the arrangements. So, your point should be: "Because you can't always multihome PA addresses in the easy way.". ;-) Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]