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 ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Thu Jan 17 11:39:49 CET 2008
On Jan 17, 2008, at 10:42 AM, Per Heldal wrote: > On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 14:47 +0100, Marco Hogewoning wrote: >> That was already clear, but if, as an end-user, I have to get a >> contract with the NCC to obtain PI space, there ain't much difference >> to becoming an LIR. There could be some difference in cost, but that >> would only mean that as a small ISP it might be cheaper to get PI >> space. >> > > Should we allow PI to be used to provide transit? > If not, would you as an ISP build your network using PI? Is there an easy way to enforce people not doing it ? -- MarcoH
- 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 ]