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] IPv6 Prefix delegation BCOP version 3 is out...

• Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 Prefix delegation BCOP version 3 is out...
• Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 Prefix delegation BCOP version 3 is out...

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Tim Chown tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Wed Jul 5 10:29:00 CEST 2017

> On 5 Jul 2017, at 09:21, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 10:11:12AM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
>> I think this would indeed be a good place to recommend against this, but maybe the other way around: "When providing address space to a smaller ISP you should give them a sub-allocation (not an assignment) that allows them to make properly sized (see the rest of this BCOP) assignments to their customers." or something like that.
> 
> +1

Yes, that’s the important bottom line.

Tim

• Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 Prefix delegation BCOP version 3 is out...
• Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 Prefix delegation BCOP version 3 is out...

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]