[address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Lenz
slz at baycix.de
Tue Jan 1 21:36:13 CET 2013
Hay, On 01.01.2013 19:56, Jan Zorz @ go6.si <jan at go6.si> wrote: > On 12/31/12 9:17 PM, Sascha Lenz wrote: >> well, I guess that's how it should have been from the beginning. >> I do support this small change. I don't think it makes a real difference anyways. > > Hi, > > Well, it does make a difference to those who merged different LIRs in one and have multiple IPv6 allocations :) just to make that clear: What i actually meant is: no negative impact :-) -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]