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] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Mon Jun 13 12:20:40 CEST 2016
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:53:18AM +0200, Nathalie Trenaman wrote:
> In practice, this means that the RFC suggests that a customer can get
> an IPv6 assignment of any size,
No. It says that if you happen to feel like routing a /128 out of your
assignment somewhere else (like, for an anycast service bound to a single
service IP), your routing gear must permit it.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20160613/140d9000/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]