What I'm saying is that, if we can't change the policy text, at least we make sure that those cases are crystal clear in the IA.
Or is that also breaking the PDP? Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <[email protected]> en nombre de Sander Steffann <[email protected]> Fecha: viernes, 19 de enero de 2018, 12:45 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email protected]> CC: <[email protected]> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] inconsistency in 2016-04 Hi, > Below in-line. Please use normal quoting, I have trouble reading your emails. > Right, but 6) IA say: "... There are cases where a /64 is needed per customer to provide a separate address ..." and 8) IA say: "... by using single IPv6 addresses for End User devices and services ..." furthermore it say "... provided no prefixes will be provided to other entities ..." I think this can be sorted out replacing in the IA "provided no more than a single prefix will be provided to other entities." No, that would drastically change the policy, and that has been looked at before. It was then decided that that is not the right approach. > I used the technology as an example, what I'm referring is if the single prefix can be shared by other devices of the user of a hot-spot (example, the hotel gives me a single /64 in the WiFi, but I've several devices). The point here is, clarification 2 above will solve the problem for multiple addresses in a single prefix, 3) may solve the problem for multiple devices with the same prefix. For both of them we may need to clarify if Max "not prefixes" is meaning also a single prefix or "not multiple prefixes", which is I think the major contradiction with the IA or NCC interpretation according to mail exchange with Marco. Sorry, what someone does with addresses is completely out of scope here. Cheers, Sander ********************************************** 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.
