[ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mohacsi Janos
mohacsi at niif.hu
Thu Feb 24 16:37:08 CET 2011
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:48:05PM +0200, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote: >> I am new to the Address Policy WG and this seems like quite an old discussion. I endorse assigning a /32 to LIRs regardless of the IPv6 access method they use. > > Uh, what exactly are we discussing here? > > Just to make this very clear: > > Any RIPE LIR can get a /32 IPv6 PA right away, just by asking. > > Only if you want *multiple* /32, or "bigger than a /32", this is where > it gets tricky (multiple distinct /32s are not possible under the > current policy, "bigger than a /32" needs documentation that you have > the necessary amount of customers). > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair Yes Agreed. I am against the idea, that 6RD deployment automatically grant another /32 allocation. Best Regards, Janos
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]