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] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Mon May 5 21:08:41 CEST 2014
Hi Jan, >> Historically it was put in there as an encouragement for "last /8" LIRs >> to "do something with IPv6"... > > I know that, but that's not quite what I meant. > > What I meant is that I don't see why the current requirement for IPv6 PA is there, but that the current document didn't already have IPv6 PI as a valid requirement. > > Not either-or. I first thought that the last /8 policy was written before IPv6 PI for LIRs became possible, so I checked: - IPv6 PI for LIRS was 2009-08 (concluded in 2009) - Last /8 was 2010-02 Seems I was wrong. IPv6 PI for LIRs did exist at the time that the last /8 policy was written. I think at the time we just didn't even consider LIRs that didn't want/need IPv6 PA space. Cheers, Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]