[address-policy-wg] De-aggregation of assigned IPv6 prefixes?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 prefixes / PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeroen Massar
jeroen at unfix.org
Tue Dec 6 00:46:57 CET 2005
Hi, http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html#initial_criteria reads amongst others: 8<------------------- c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it will assign /48s by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation -------------------->8 According to the above, after the /48, can one announce more specifics or should/must one not do this? (*) The RIPE Registry allows registering more specific route6 objects. If this is allowed, then why is the above parrt, after '/48', then included in the policy? What is the exact intention of the sentence? Greets, Jeroen *= of course one is lord of their own network and thus can announce whatever one wants and just hope/agree that others accept it. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 238 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20051206/d6f64752/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 prefixes / PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]