[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Fri Oct 28 11:18:55 CEST 2011
On 10/28/11 11:14 AM, Remco Van Mook wrote: > > Dear Ahmed, > > I would have completely agreed with you five years ago. Problem is, we've > managed to run out of time and 6rd is one of the few transition protocols > that has a chance of being implemented in many eyeball networks in the > next 12-18 months. I don't like 6RD much either (actually I also don't > like how IPv6 reserves 64 bits for the host part), but this is address > policy and not the protocol police. > > Address space that is used is not wasted, and if LIRs use it below the > thresholds set in IPv6 allocation policy (which, surprise surprise, 6rd is > likely to do) at least those LIRs won't be entitled to any followup > address space until they've cleaned up. +1 Thnx :) Cheers, Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]