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 ]
Patrick Vande Walle
patrick at vande-walle.eu
Thu Mar 20 18:30:16 CET 2008
As others have pointed out, it makes little sense to give IPv6 address ranges to those who do not request or need them. I would support a proposal that would allow RIPE to give out IPv6 PI space to those Inetnum holders who specifically request it, no questions asked. I do not buy the argument that it should be rejected because this would fill up the routing tables. If the Cogent/Telia ongoing dispute is any indication, even the SOHO's will soon need to multihome if they want global connectivity. So, unless we want to repeat the NAT scenario we currently have in homes and small offices, PI space seems necessary and will develop further.The router industry will need to come up with faster hardware. Patrick Vande Walle
- 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 ]