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 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
Thu Nov 9 21:37:48 CET 2017
Ondřej Caletka wrote: > The only difference is that with PI, the it is the RIPE NCC evaluating > the rules, which seem to be too strict in considering what should count > as sub-assignment. But if we try to fix this, let's keep the fix working > both for PI and PA addresses. Just because the problem is not visible in > PA world does not mean it does not exist there. I see what you mean here, but this is something that has been almost universally ignored for PA assignments since forever. 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 ]