[address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Wed Apr 15 10:41:28 CEST 2009
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 03:53:46PM +0200, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > and secondly doesn't this open up the path to /32 per AS instead to / > 32 per LIR ? And is there anything wrong with that? I clearly understand the conservation goal, but to be honest - is there any problem with (for example) 1k more /32s which could be allocated under that policy? I sometimes personally wonder if we are going to promote ipv6 or not by using too strict policies. And yes - i know the history of ipv4. ;-) Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]