[ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Mon Jun 13 12:20:40 CEST 2016
Hi, On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:53:18AM +0200, Nathalie Trenaman wrote: > In practice, this means that the RFC suggests that a customer can get > an IPv6 assignment of any size, No. It says that if you happen to feel like routing a /128 out of your assignment somewhere else (like, for an anycast service bound to a single service IP), your routing gear must permit it. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20160613/140d9000/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]