[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Mon Jun 21 12:10:49 CEST 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-06-21, at 11.58, Carlos Morgado wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:41:05PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: > >> >> If we still agree that we don't want to give /32's to enterprises, toy >> ISPs without any real number of customers (hey! my consulting company >> has two connectivity customers as well, should I get a /32 prefix?), >> or such, we have to keep in some checks. >> > > Have we figured out how to make multihoming work without giving > multihomed > networks their own prefix like in v4 ? Depends on your definition of "figured out". At the multi6 WG interim meeting last week we got down to 6 proposal from 32. And I think those 6 will come down to two fairly shortly. Then all we need to do is develop and implement it... I suggest joining the multi6 mailinglist. Instructions at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/multi6-charter.html - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQNa0LKarNKXTPFCVEQJFMgCfUoFi2ji1/2P+IxgUH2gkx+rRbYYAn1ph iwNvR0h/6q9c5bD1ZMnTb5ao =TuZe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]