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] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Mon Nov 14 12:19:05 CET 2005
-----Original Message----- From: Elmar K. Bins [mailto:elmi at 4ever.de] >But you're trying to lure us away from the proposal we're discussing which >states a special case of DNS for _ccTLDs... > >The requirements for v6 space in the RIPE region includes having transit >customers (at all, the 200 is just an arbitrary number). No ccTLD registry >that's not also conducting other business may receive an allocation. That's >the entire point of the special case being made. ccTLDs cannot deliver >services in v6 like in v4. This - IMHO - is a v6 showstopper. So we are back at the beginning; I say no to anycast PI for TLDs/ccTLDs. I don't believe it is a special case so it doesn't need a special policy. TLDs/ccTLDs could/should however be used as an argument to allow v6 PI prefixes in general. V6 PI compared to v4 surely is a showstopper for many, or at least for some. Cheers, Joergen Hovland
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]