[address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carsten Schiefner
ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de
Tue May 4 18:16:10 CEST 2010
Hi Gert, Gert Doering wrote: > On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 04:58:52PM +0200, Carsten Schiefner wrote: >> Oh, and yes: I am in favour of a v4/v6 harmonisation, too. > > Why? all right, fair question :-) - for the reason that has been voiced here already: v4 and v6 are of course different - but should not be treated differently in the way PI space is being managed. Not even if I consider your devil's advocate argument below. > (Half of it is because it's easier to judge the outcome of a discussion > if there are specific arguments for or against something - and the > other half of it is because I'm playing the devil's advocate, and claim > that we might not want IPv6 to be the same as IPv4... e.g. as in > "if people can use PI to give single IPv6 addresses to their end > customers, we might see DSL deployments with single address + NAT, > and this not something I want to see"...) Best, Carsten
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]