[address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Fri Nov 18 17:08:09 CET 2005
On 17 nov 2005, at 20.05, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Tim Streater wrote: > >> The other network is one we are *currently* managing, >> EUMEDCONNECT. It is for the Middle-eastern and North African >> NRENs. The intention here is that we expect these NRENs to set up >> their own entity to manage it, and go their own way, in which case >> we gift them the infrastructure, which in this case has to include >> the address space. We can do that for v4 as I got PI space for >> that. Its v6 that is the problem. >> > > Did you actually *try* getting a separate /32 for this? > > RIPE NCC is known to be very reasonable towards transit networks, > and I could bet good money you could get an allocation without a > hitch. So what you say is "keep the current rule as the NCC will disobey it anyway". Why can't we just fix the broken policy.... - kurtis -
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]