That’s why I suggested that the limit can be only /64 if we want to have a in
PI at the time being.
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Nick
Hilliard <n...@foobar.org>
Responder a: <n...@foobar.org>
Fecha: miércoles, 8 de noviembre de 2017, 16:55
Para: <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment
Clarification)
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> I don’t think reaching consensus in the PI/PA change will be so easy
> in the “near future” (considering that it may require a long
> implementation time), and a middle way proposal looks feasible to
> me.
but it's not a middle way: it's removing the block on sub-assigning to
other parties, which is the thing that distinguishes PI from PA.
Nick
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
