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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
michael.dillon at bt.com
michael.dillon at bt.com
Thu Mar 20 13:18:52 CET 2008
> Many entities will have no use for the /56 you're planning on giving them. In general, I agree with those who oppose this proposal. But another problem with the proposal is that it will lead many organizations to design their IPv6 network based on a /56 rather than a /48 which is more normal. Organizations really should think about how they structure their IPv6 network and only squeeze it into a /56 if they need to. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]