[address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Farmer
farmer at umn.edu
Tue Nov 8 19:01:13 CET 2022
Actually you want RFC 8950. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8950 On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 07:55 Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote: > Will Hargrave wrote on 08/11/2022 13:48: > > If we think router vendors are in a position to reliably support v4 > > AF over BGP in v6, and actually route this traffic > this is kinda the problem with RFC 5549, no? I.e. it deals only with > signaling rather than transport. So even if it's deployed, the IXP will > still need to provide ipv4 addresses for transport purposes. > > Nick > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20221108/26295112/attachment-0001.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]