[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Shane Kerr
shane at time-travellers.org
Tue Jul 19 12:48:09 CEST 2011
[ address-policy-wg trimmed from Cc:] On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 11:40 +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: > > > On 7/19/11 11:16 AM, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote: > >> I think we will keep having having these issues until the minimum subnet > >> assignment (outside point to point links) can be smaller than /64 which > >> is an astronomical waste of public addresses for a home or business > >> assignment. > > > > Maybe it's me, but I really don't understand what are you talking about. > > Can you please elaborate a bit on this? > > Please take this off-list as this is out of scope for RIPE. Actually, if people want to discuss this on the IPv6 working group list I don't mind. The IPv6 list is quite open for all IPv6-related discussions, whether they are related to RIPE or not. :) Thanks! -- Shane
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]