[address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Tue Apr 15 13:58:57 CEST 2014
Richard Hartmann wrote: > I see no substantial difference between last-/8 and the returned > almost-/10. It would be used up within days and we are back to where we are > today. > > I would still be against any proposal in this direction. Same here. It was a conscious decision to *not* go back to whatever different policy after the last/8-mode kicked in. I still think it was, and is, the right decision. Although I'm reiterating stuff that was explained already, the reason for my position is: - the little excess in addresses in the pool would not really last, i.e. make a substantial difference overall, - fiddling around with erratic or short-term provisions would actually lead to less "equality" (for whatever definition) and send the wrong signal to those not yet doing IPv6 (old or new), - thus delaying the deployment of IPv6 even further. > Again, sorry, > Richard Wilfried.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]