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] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Lenz
slz at baycix.de
Tue Jan 1 21:36:13 CET 2013
Hay, On 01.01.2013 19:56, Jan Zorz @ go6.si <jan at go6.si> wrote: > On 12/31/12 9:17 PM, Sascha Lenz wrote: >> well, I guess that's how it should have been from the beginning. >> I do support this small change. I don't think it makes a real difference anyways. > > Hi, > > Well, it does make a difference to those who merged different LIRs in one and have multiple IPv6 allocations :) just to make that clear: What i actually meant is: no negative impact :-) -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]