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]/
[ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Short report on Saudi IPv6 Task Force meeting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Yannis Nikolopoulos
dez at otenet.gr
Mon Nov 24 15:23:08 CET 2014
hello, a rather late reply On 11/12/2014 11:26 AM, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus wrote: > Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen: >> Hello, >> >> On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: >>> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need >>> two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal >>> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. >> >> In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about >> address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list >> for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support >> this proposal. sorry, but this just doesn't make sense. RIPE's IPv6 WG is about promoting IPv6 adoption and there's definitely a long way to go... http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ipv6 > Hi, > > But > please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We > will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much > experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today. +1 regards, Yannis > Regards, > > Wilhelm
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Short report on Saudi IPv6 Task Force meeting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]