[address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Ingvoldstad
frettled at gmail.com
Mon May 5 20:43:41 CEST 2014
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 05:13:20PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > > On one hand, I don't quite see why the current requirement for IPv6 PA is > > there, and therefore it seems obvious that having IPv6 PI should be a > valid > > requirement as well. > > Historically it was put in there as an encouragement for "last /8" LIRs > to "do something with IPv6"... > > I know that, but that's not quite what I meant. What I meant is that I don't see why the current requirement for IPv6 PA is there, but that the current document didn't already have IPv6 PI as a valid requirement. Not either-or. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140505/4680d472/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]