[address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Tue Apr 19 14:50:13 CEST 2011
Tim Chown wrote: > On 15 Apr 2011, at 11:28, boggits wrote: > > >>On 15 April 2011 10:22, Emilio Madaio <emadaio at ripe.net> wrote: >> >>>A proposed change to the RIPE Document ripe-512,"IPv6 Address >>>Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. >> >>>You can find the full proposal at: >>> >>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 >> >>Why should a company require PIv6 addressing when the task of >>renumbering within IPv6 space has become so simple? > > > I'm interested: how simple do you think it has become? In particular, when most of the (originally conceived and RFC'd) support functionality in DNS - has been removed in the meantime... Wilfried. > Tim
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]