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] 2016-05 I agree
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 I agree
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Frank Meyer
meyer at it-nds.de
Sat Feb 4 10:27:25 CET 2017
Hello, I agree to 2016-05 ! Why having 2 different policies for the same thing? - Two policies cause overhead and double effort. - Different policies punish early birds in ipv6 deployment. So let us synchronise the policies. Best regards! Frank lir de.government sub lir Niedersachsen
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 I agree
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]