This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dan Luedtke
maildanrl at googlemail.com
Thu Nov 10 08:05:49 CET 2011
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Turchanyi Geza <turchanyi.geza at gmail.com> wrote: > 1, Most of the content must be accessible on IPv6 stack as well; > 2, Broadband users must be supported. Never questioned that. But, that is no reason to stay in the way of those who *want* to deploy IPv6 but cannot get their hands on addresses. It is just not ok, that a RIPE policy is preventing deployment in some networks while we are pushing large ISP to deploy it. We should push *all* parties to deploy it. It's not only the ISPs internet, although they are a/the force of it. As I understood, the other RIRs have not encountered a pollution problem when allowing PI assignments without multihome-requirement. But I may be wrong on this, as I have no numbers were I am right now. regards, Dan -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]