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] why-pi question still in request form after 2011-02 acceptance?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 Last Call for Comments (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] why-pi question still in request form after 2011-02 acceptance?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Mon Jun 23 03:21:10 CEST 2014
Hi, could someone explain the rationale that the "why-pi" question is still in the IPv6 PI request form? Given that since acceptance and implementation of 2011-02 there are no special requirements attached to IPv6 PI anymore (other than the bureaucracy), I see absolutely no point in having people explain "why PA address space cannot be used for this assignment". The obvious, totally acceptable yet completely superfluous answer would be "because PA is not provider independent". I'd suggest to simply remove this "why-pi" question from the request form and supporting notes. :-) Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 Last Call for Comments (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] why-pi question still in request form after 2011-02 acceptance?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]