This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Garry Glendown
garry at nethinks.com
Wed Jan 16 10:56:42 CET 2008
michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: >> - small one-time fee (100-200EUR?) for non-routable PI (take >> them out of a defined /32 or so which is/can/should be >> filtered by ISPs) >> > What is non-routable PI? > What can you do with it that you cannot do with a ULA prefix? > Not routed for things like VPN-Connections and the likes ... users sometimes need unique IP addresses, as the chance of running into a customer/partner that happens to use the same RFC networks is growing ... IPv6 will make the chances smaller, but getting a PI assigned for such purposes would eliminate that problem. -garry
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]