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] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

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

Nick Hilliard nick at foobar.org
Mon Oct 7 14:12:34 CEST 2019

Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote on 07/10/2019 12:28:
> On 07.10.19 13:21, Job Snijders wrote:
>> Perhaps Kai referred to the RIR system as a whole
> 
> I did. "the RIR system" does not mean "only RIPE".

spreading the blame out doesn't change much.  The problem of ipv4 
exhaustion has been under discussion since the early 1990s, and that 
discussion encompassed the role of the RIRs as a whole, 240/4, ipv6, the 
role of fairness in ip addressing policies and lots more besides.

You're welcome to propose that large cdns be assigned 240/4, although I 
wonder about the optics and wisdom of handing out this address space 
exclusively to the large players, and politely declining everyone else.

Nick

Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

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

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]