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
