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] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Mon Oct 24 22:02:03 CEST 2016
HI Sander, Sander Steffann wrote: [...] > > So prefix delegation is OK as long as the prefix is longer than a /64? > > Technically that's what the proposal is currently proposing. I'm curious > about the opinions of working group members about that. Taking no position on the proposal itself, I'd like to draw people's attention to RFC 7421 (Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing). Section 4.4 deals with Implementation and Deployment Issues and might be a helpful read when considering a proposal that might lead to significant pressure to deploy infrastructures designed to delegate prefixes longer than /64. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4968 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161024/9f9a55b3/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]