[address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Mon Sep 8 17:18:20 CEST 2014
On 08/09/2014 04:08, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: > It seems clear that we can't reach consensus on removing it completely, so > I'm hoping for your support. Let's take baby steps so we can get at least > some progress? yep, agreed. > The wording does not refer to route6 objects, only inet6num objects. The > part about "globally routeable" refers to 2000::/3 so that people don't try > to advance fc00::/7 or fec0::/10 address space (for example) as "theirs." In that case it would probably be advisable to refer to IANA designated Global Unicast address space rather than "globally routable": http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space > Our intention was to allow assignments by other LIRs or NIRs or whatever as > well as RIRs. It's not clear what you mean here. Are you talking about provider independent direct assignments - which are exclusively assigned by NIRs and RIRs, or PA assignments - which are exclusively assigned by LIRs? The proposal only makes sense for direct / PI assignments, not PA assignments. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]