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] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Fri Jul 24 14:17:43 CEST 2015
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02:31PM +0000, Silvia Hagen wrote: >So let's go for balance :-) I agree. I think a sensible balance may be that allocations >/29 are reviewed (as they are now, AIUI) by the IPRA managers and/or the Board. There is a danger, in my opinion, that the IPv6 allocation/assignment process is infested with "IPv4 thinking" which will result in SPs employing "workarounds" of the sort that made IPv4 such a pain to deal with. That said, I've done a bit of v6 IPAM recently and the numbers one deals with are staggering. ;p rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]