[address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tim Chown
tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Fri Apr 15 13:22:54 CEST 2011
On 15 Apr 2011, at 11:28, boggits wrote: > On 15 April 2011 10:22, Emilio Madaio <emadaio at ripe.net> wrote: >> A proposed change to the RIPE Document ripe-512,"IPv6 Address >> Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. > >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 > > Why should a company require PIv6 addressing when the task of > renumbering within IPv6 space has become so simple? I'm interested: how simple do you think it has become? Tim
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]