[address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Yannis Nikolopoulos
dez at otenet.gr
Mon Nov 24 15:23:08 CET 2014
hello, a rather late reply On 11/12/2014 11:26 AM, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus wrote: > Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen: >> Hello, >> >> On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: >>> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need >>> two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal >>> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. >> >> In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about >> address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list >> for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support >> this proposal. sorry, but this just doesn't make sense. RIPE's IPv6 WG is about promoting IPv6 adoption and there's definitely a long way to go... http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ipv6 > Hi, > > But > please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We > will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much > experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today. +1 regards, Yannis > Regards, > > Wilhelm
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]