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] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Wed May 2 17:04:05 CEST 2018
Of course, in case it was not clear, I didn't want to mean "because ARIN did that, we should do the same as well". It was just a matter of providing context. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Gert Doering <gert at space.net> Fecha: miércoles, 2 de mayo de 2018, 9:35 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> CC: RIPE Address Policy WG List <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6 Hi, On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 07:25:12AM -0500, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > ???As you probably know, ARIN amended some time ago their IPv6 policy proposal in order to make sure that the allocations to LIRs are aligned to the nibble boundary. Speaking as a long-time IPv6 user, I see no real benefit in this. Yes, a /29 means I have to set up 8 reverse DNS zones, instead of one. Bummer. And my IP management tool might need to learn about non-magic bit numbers (but it will need to understand that anyway if I do reasonably-sized internal suballocations, like "a /34 for a region" and not "a /36 because the tool cannot do /34s"). "Just because ARIN does it" is also not a good reason to follow suit - like, "lots of people going for /36 allocations, because /32 is too big and, priced-by-size, too expensive"... (But this is strictly my *personal* opinion. If there is sufficient support in the WG, I'll shepherd a corresponding proposal, of course) Gert Doering -- long time IPv6 allocation holder -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]