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/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Joao Damas
Joao_Damas at isc.org
Mon Jun 21 10:12:09 CEST 2004
what IANA needs is an RFC where the IETF says something like: "this given prefix (eg IPv6 addresses beginning with bits 001) are to be used for unicast IPv6." How the LIRs get to tell IANA and the RIRs should partition the given space for real world deployment should be subject to architectural constraints and ISP business operations. It is not an IETF role. Joao On 21 Jun, 2004, at 10:01, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 2004-06-21, at 09.34, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > >> I guess if the RFC is there is because IANA requires it, so moving >> this to historic will not work, instead updating it will do. > > Help me out here. Why would IANA require it? I don't remember there > being an RFC telling IANA how to allocate other resources? What's so > special about IPv6 addresses? > > - - kurtis - > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP 8.0.3 > > iQA/AwUBQNaVwqarNKXTPFCVEQJrbwCgjpe67yC7v0iD6eEYGyDAUwPI3GoAoIaO > mYXgpaVzzofUkOMR/r+oElDC > =NOOE > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]