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 ]
Maximilian Wilhelm
max at rfc2324.org
Wed Nov 8 17:48:42 CET 2017
Anno domini 2017 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ scripsit: Hi Jordi, [...] > I feel that the current version is solving partially Max case, but even in his case, if he decides to provide /64 for each hot-spot customer, this proposal will not work. Actually the NCC IA interpretation is rather clear on this one - as Marco (IIRC) confirmed while the WG session. /64 assignments to hosts aren't a problem with the current policy text / interpretation. Best Max
- 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 ]