Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
-
To: "" <>
-
From: McTim <>
-
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 14:13:15 +0300
-
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=SJHNcEasfWr4KT4iUFr1xOv//7UIBW5MdRKzYiEOCpAirth7N+UOWWhDt5hBAYpK21QMgmUWeg8JFo3zF2YPBv7/I6krzWmRQyJSGvr1NndeOA2Z5RlUDxip/eQzqsB1Pc1hXDWnjXvPQ4n20vdpRvRj4gdb6W48uwuP3v+OoZQ=
On 12/7/05, Michael.Dillon@localhost <Michael.Dillon@localhost wrote:
>
> In regard to IP addressing policy, it is sufficient for the
> RIRs to start doing things more wisely. If the RIRs would open
> up another 1/8th of the IPv6 address space for geotop allocations
> then they would no longer be blocking this solution.
IIUC, the RIRs don't have another 1/8 of the space to "open up". they
don't even have the whole of the first 1/8. IANA holds the global
pool. The NRO *could* be helpful in lobbying for this, if their
communities asked it of them.
--
Cheers,
McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
|
you are here: RIPE -> RIPE Maillists > Archives
