[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
McTim
dogwallah at gmail.com
Tue Nov 29 05:19:49 CET 2005
hiya, (removed address-policy-wg from the cc:) On 11/28/05, Jørgen Hovland <jorgen at hovland.cx> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > > >#2 sounds like PI to me. What have I missed? > > Hello McTim, > You are correct. That's why I wrote PI in the email:-). I guess I misread the below wrong then ;-) Jørgen Hovland wrote: >> - >> 1. No PI. _Only_ network operators get a prefix. > It is an attempt to suggest an alternative idea to the PI discussion. > Don't get me wrong. I am for PI. This idea is perhaps a bit more > hierarchical instead of the standard flat one. Just making sure we have > thought of everything before we reach consensus I am sure thiat consensus will take a very long tiime on this one! We will probably have to talk about grotopological v6 adressing (as they are doing on the ARIN ppml) and a host of other issues. I reckon we ought to wait for shim6 to do their work as well. > because this PI discussion > is very important to ipv6. v. true. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]