[address-policy-wg] Re: Re: 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Wed May 27 11:22:34 CEST 2009
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:17:50AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > More importantly why are we calling those prefixes then "Provider > Aggregated"? If they are not aggregated anymore by the above change? It's "provider aggregatABLE", and the ability to aggregate ain't impedet. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]