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 ]
Stepan Kucherenko
twh at megagroup.ru
Fri Apr 22 11:19:32 CEST 2016
I mean if there is a new LIR who gets his initial /22 allocation and /32 IPv6 allocation, it doesn't mean he will do anything with that /32 IPv6. And it's not possible to check if he will do that. But if in a couple of years he comes for additional /22, RIPE can check if he actually rolled out and accept or deny his request based on that. That way LIRs can plan and execute IPv6 rollout if they want more legacy space, or don't and live with what was given to them at the start. On 22.04.2016 12:08, Denis Fondras wrote: >> Last /8 policy came with some strings attached (IPv6 allocation) but there >> is no way a new LIR will show some IPv6 progress before initial IPv4 >> allocation was made. >> > > Can you elaborate a bit please ? > > Denis >
- 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 ]