how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Previous message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Next message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Wed Apr 6 18:22:06 CEST 2005
On 6-apr-05, at 8:30, Oliver Bartels wrote: > For our company we require a *unique* *globally* and under > our AS with definition of an AS ("own policy") routable > address space. I don't care about the exact size. No you don't. That's just the easiest way to get what you really need (stability, independence, failover, whatever). > Thus I can clearly tell you that without independently > routable address space we will not introduce IPv6 within > our network. Period. See you in IPv7 then. Bye.
- Previous message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Next message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]