[address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Wed Aug 10 12:34:26 CEST 2011
Turchanyi Geza wrote: > Hi Jasper, [...] > The policy allowing Provider Independent allocation might be revoked later > on and if it is revoked then ALL PI holder not fullfilling the new policy > will be requested to return their PI address space and renumber to PA > address space within 2 years. > > What do you think about this? Maybe easy in some (tech-savvy playground) pockets of the net, but certainly not going to fly in some (many?) pretty stable and/or complex environments. One example: health services area. I'd even venture to say that it would actually be completely contrary to why many organisations opt(ed) for PI... > Thanks, > > Géza Wilfried PS: maybe slightly OT, but why was number portability introduced and has become quite popular in the telephone system? Renumbering a phone is "easy", isn't it ;-)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]