[address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
- 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 ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Fri Nov 18 14:58:18 CET 2011
On 16/11/2011 11:01, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > On 11/16/11 10:03 AM, Sascha Lenz wrote: >> Why is everyone focussing on the 6RD part? > > No idea. Just one of incentives (initial one). Let's stop beating around the bush: everyone is focussing on 6rd because if it weren't for 6rd, there would be no requirement for 2011-04 - simply because there are no other ipv6 migration mechanisms around which a) require vast amounts of extra v6 address space and b) look like they might actually work. As a separate issue, the policy should not be worded to mention 6rd. However, we need to acknowledge that the primary motivation for this proposal is all about enabling 6rd. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
- 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 ]