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] [Ext] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ondřej Caletka
Ondrej.Caletka at cesnet.cz
Thu Oct 19 16:06:55 CEST 2017
+1 for this proposal. The only thing that I'm little bit scared of is the last paragraph of the section A of the impact analysis. Some operators could use this proposal as an apology for not deploying the network properly, like when they use (pseudo-)bridges instead of routers, just to avoid "sub-delegation". But I don't think this is a big problem, especially now when most entities are becoming LIRs just to get some more v4 addresses. I believe this proposal goes in the right direction and conforms with common sense on what should be assignments used for. -- Ondřej Caletka -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3718 bytes Desc: Elektronicky podpis S/MIME URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20171019/42b5d507/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ext] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]