About RIPE | Contact  | Search | Sitemap    
Homepage RIPE  
RIPE Community Mail Archives
search  
     
RIPE Navigation Ends
About RIPE Maillists
Maillists Archive
Global Lists
Non Active Lists
RIPE NCC Navigation Ends
Next Section
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy forInternet Exchange Points

  • To: Dave Pratt < >
    < >
    < >
    < >
  • From: Fearghas McKay < >
  • Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 10:27:30 +0100

Hi Dave

At 10:24 am +0200 6/9/01, Dave Pratt wrote:
I wrote:
->> > 1. The idea of issuing a single/multiple /64 is totally unnecessary.

This point was poorly expressed and could be mis-interpreted. As hinted at
later in the same email, allocating a /48 makes much more sense to me if we
want to save work for the NCC and the IXPs.
The current proposed allocations are being made with /48 boundaries so that we can make the change following discussion in Prague if that is the consensus about the interim policy.

We, as in the WG-Chairs and the NCC, have tried to make the interim policy extensible to allow it to be easily modified as we get more feedback on areas that were causing some people concern but that there was no consensus of what was the right way forward.

f




  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>
 

Next Section
     About RIPE | Site Map | LIR Portal | About the RIPE NCC | Contact | © RIPE Community. All rights reserved.
RIPE.NET Homepage LIR Portal RIPE Community