[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Tue Jul 14 14:37:39 CEST 2009
On Jul 14, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Stream Service || Mark Scholten wrote: > Hello, > > Are there people here that say that a small change of the current > policy is > a problem? The change would be that the list I did mention earlier > is a > valid reason to get a IPv6 PI range. > > If no one is saying that it is a problem at this moment to create a > formal > proposal to change it (or a new proposal based on the current one) I > would > like to create it the coming week. The target of the change will be > to make > it a little bit easier to get IPv6 PI for organizations, so more > organizations could start offering their services on IPv6 (PA isn't > enough > for many organizations if they are not the LIR). > > With kind regards, > > Mark Scholten What change are you thinking of ? If it goes in the direction to allow sub-assingment (in any way shape or form) from within a PI block I wouldn't support it. And to answer your question, I guess that there will always be some objection to change...it's in people's nature. MarcoH
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]