[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

Hi,

> Op 21 mei 2016, om 17:52 heeft Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Gert Doering wrote:
>> Right - *but* it might be an interesting idea to turn around this discussion,
>> away from haggling about the last scraps, into being able to give more
>> useful guidance to LIRs.
>> 
>> Like,
>> 
>>  - if you need to connect end-users, best practice is dual-stack with
>>    native IPv6 and CGNAT IPv4 (it stinks, but gets the job done while
>>    content is not IPv6 capable everyhwere)
>> 
>>  - if you run a data-center, run ipv6-only on the inside, and add
>>    Tore-style NAT46 to give each service a single public IPv4 address
>>    (insert pointer to RFC...)
>> 
>> etc.
>> 
>> While not truly *APWG* relevant, we could at least find out where the
>> highest pain is, and then throw the ball over to the IPv6 WG to provide
>> solutions :-)  (totally IETF style).
> 
> That sounds like an offer to write the document.

Hans Petter just made a nice statement in the opening plenary. I'm taking this to the BCOP session this afternoon to see if we can write this down properly.

Cheers,
Sander

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160523/2157590b/attachment.sig>