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] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tim Chown
tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Thu Apr 21 13:01:19 CEST 2016
> On 21 Apr 2016, at 11:38, Stepan Kucherenko <twh at megagroup.ru> wrote: > > There is also a problem with IPv6 roll-outs that it's usually (almost always?) bigger guys, but smaller companies will lag behind for years if not decades. Small incentive for small companies to keep up ? Not true in the UK at least. Residential IPv6 service has been led by a number of ‘smaller’ ISPs, for many years. It’s only in the last few months that we’ve seen one of the big ISPs starting to make IPv6 available to their customers; having started the visible roll-out last September, Sky UK are expecting to have well over 90% of their users enabled by July, and all new subscribers are already getting IPv6 by default. Tim
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]