Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?

["JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <]

I will also support the idea of 6/6/6.

I believe a shorter time is a little bit dangerous. Some OS could be not updated so often. Not a maker problem, but by the users. The main point should be to avoid problems to users, mainly.

I also hear to Jeroen, but I'm not really sure that this actually means (and in 1-2 years from now) so many resources. Instead, we can also move forward faster IF the deployment takes up sooner.

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Chown" tjc@localhost
To: "Jeroen Massar" jeroen@localhost
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?


> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:54:03PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > 
> > I propose that RIPE, and actually any other RIR, stops any delegations
> > for ip6.int per 9/9/2006. Which is more than 3 years after the RFC has
> > been released.
> > 
> 
> Maybe 6/6/6 as per 3ffe deprecation?
> 
> tim
> 
> 


**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.