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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Wed Nov 8 17:28:15 CET 2017
Gert Doering wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 05:16:32PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> > That???s why I suggested that the limit can be only /64 if we want to have a in PI at the time being. > > A /64 for what? per customer? ... which is why Jordi's approach is a big deal. We either have PI or we don't, but I don't think its demise should be handled by slipping some innocuous looking test into the ipv6 policy spec. Changing the terms of PI is a significant change in the direction of the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC and shouldn't be approached in a piecemeal sort of way. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]