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] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 10
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 10
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 new radical suggestions
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Lu Heng
h.lu at anytimechinese.com
Thu May 8 13:55:22 CEST 2014
Hi I guess the earlier we get rid of the difference, the easier it is to implemented PI space will only cause more and more future problems/administrative hassles as long as its exists. End of the day, they are all IP addresses, you can use your own allocation in any other LIR's network and let them manage for you, that is perfectly fine practise(like what you do nowadays with PI space), so there is no real operational difference between PI space or allocation to start with, why should we keep the difference? On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Daniel Stolpe <stolpe at resilans.se> wrote: > > On Thu, 8 May 2014, Roger Jørgensen wrote: > >> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 03:57:25PM -0500, Lu Heng wrote: >>>> >>>> I personally believe we might no longer need to distinguish PI and >>>> PA--it might solve all the question all together. >>> >>> >>> We tried to go there, the WG rejected the proposal... and I can >>> understand that, as the complications in the actual implementations >>> are significant. >> >> >> Hmm as I remember there was no rejection of the idea, more a >> cancellation of the started work due to the implication and >> complication involved in getting done. > > > We received mainly positive feed back on the mailing list but at the > presentation what we heard was generally negative and "don't go there", > "please stop" etc. > > Not that many voices but those who spoke were firmly negative. > > So while many members seem to agree that the PA/PI difference is something > we should get rid of, the roots go deep and a even if we just want to start > fresh in IPv6 it affects almost every area. > > I still think it would be a good thing but I am not sure about how to > accomplish such a change. > > Cheers, > > Daniel > > _________________________________________________________________________________ > Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 > stolpe at resilans.se > Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 > http://www.resilans.se/ > Box 45 094 > 556741-1193 > 104 30 Stockholm -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 10
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 new radical suggestions
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]