Hi folks,
Anno domini 2023 Peter Hessler scripsit:
> I still support the proposal as-is. The proposed change does not
> weaken any data that is in the database, and in fact may allow it to be
> more obvious that these address ranges are used by end users rather than
> be unclear what their
Anno domini 2023 Sebastian Wiesinger scripsit:
> * Angela Dall'Ara [2023-09-04 11:55]:
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > A new RIPE Policy Proposal, 2023-04, "Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4
> > PA assignments"
> > is now available for discussion.
> >
> > This proposal aims to introduce the
Moin,
Anno domini 2023 Gert Doering scripsit:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 09:01:03AM +0200, Angela Dall'Ara wrote:
> > This proposal modifies the default size of IPv4 assignments for IXPs
> > from a /24 to /26 and clarifies the return of the assignments previously
> > issued for their IXP
Anno domini 2022 Gert Doering scripsit:
Hey folks,
> I announced too many weeks ago that a small group was looking into the
> IPv6 policy, as it is today, why it is what it is, and whether the
> underlying assumptions that the policy is based on are still valid.
[...]
> We'll present about this
Anno domini 2020 Nick Hilliard scripsit:
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:05:
> > However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more
> > IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and
> > thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra
Anno domini 2019 Stary Bezpiek scripsit:
Hi,
[...]
> What is outdated? That Mikrotik deals V6 mostly in software? That Cisco 6800
> series (still pretty wide used) is not ready to full support of today's IPv6
> world?
Could you please elaborate on the shortcomings here?
Best
Max
--
Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit:
Hi,
[...]
>> What is your real intent with all this? Simplification does not seem
>> to be it.
> For full disclosure, if you still doubt about it: My intent is only doing
> work whenever I need it helps, for the good
Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit:
Hi,
> PI and PA are artificial names for the same thing.
They are not.
> There is only one type of Global Unicast Addresses in IPv6.
Not true.
PI and PA are sliced from different pools which may have (I didn't evaluate
Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit:
> Responding below, in-line.
*PLEASE* use some meaningful way to quote and answer inline so a
reader can distinguish between the original text and your answer. You
current mode of answering is making this really hard.
> >
Anno domini 2018 Gert Doering scripsit:
Hi,
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:34:25PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in
> > IPv6 Policy" is now available for discussion.
>
> This policy proposal was prompted by the discussion at
Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit:
Hi Jordi,
> none of this will change our decision, but it would make it more easy
> to the rest of the readers to understand why you're so angry *right now*,
> while neither the announcement of the extention nor
Anno domini 2017 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ scripsit:
Hi,
> Ok, here is it then. Hopefully we have a lot of fun and good noise ;-)
> (that's music?)
> The main idea is to allow what Max (and many other people) needs in PI, but
> not having restrictions.
>
> For that, what I’m proposing is:
>
> 1)
Anno domini 2017 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ scripsit:
Hi Jordi,
[...]
> I feel that the current version is solving partially Max case, but even in
> his case, if he decides to provide /64 for each hot-spot customer, this
> proposal will not work.
Actually the NCC IA interpretation is rather clear
Anno domini 2017 Marco Schmidt scripsit:
Hi Marco,
> Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification" is now in the
> Review Phase.
Cool, thanks for that!
> The goal of this proposal is to re-define the term "sub-assignment" for IPv6.
>
> This proposal has been updated following
Anno domini 2016 Leo Vegoda scripsit:
Hi Leo,
> > > So prefix delegation is OK as long as the prefix is longer than a /64?
> >
> > Technically that's what the proposal is currently proposing. I'm curious
> > about the opinions of working group members about that.
> Taking no position on the
Anno domini 2016 Kai 'wusel' Siering scripsit:
Hi Kai,
> am 21.10.2016 um 10:32 schrieb David Croft:
> > Strong support in principle. We have been denied IPv6 temporary
> > assignments due to the NCC's interpretation that a single DHCP lease
> > on wifi is a "subassignment" to another entity,
Anno domini 2016 David Croft scripsit:
> On 21 October 2016 at 12:55, Maximilian Wilhelm <m...@rfc2324.org> wrote:
> > Anno domini 2016 David Croft scripsit:
> >> I note that the "New policy text" does not specify the replacement
> >> text for the &quo
Anno domini 2016 David Croft scripsit:
> Strong support in principle. We have been denied IPv6 temporary
> assignments due to the NCC's interpretation that a single DHCP lease
> on wifi is a "subassignment" to another entity, which was clearly not
> the intention.
Thanks for the support.
> I
Anno domini 2016 Ciprian Nica scripsit:
[...]
> Yes, start praising people if that's the purpose of this list. Hitler was
> also a very praised man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Best
Max
Anno domini 2015 Gert Doering scripsit:
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 03:29:54PM +0200, Thomas Drewermann wrote:
the Freifunk communities are not going to give /64 to end users.
There will be one single IPv6 address leased to end users connecting to
the wireless networks.
So what's the
Anno domini 2015 Ondřej Caletka scripsit:
Hi Ondřej, hi list,
I'm not sure what networks typically a freifunk community network
oparates. But if it can be compared to a very small ISP with tens to
hundreds customers, than the PI assignment is not an option due to its
fixed size of /48 which
Anno domini 2015 Sascha Luck [ml] scripsit:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 09:52:10PM +0200, Ond?ej Caletka wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea. There is a reason why the usage of PI
addresses is restricted. I think your proposal would lead to a situation
where everybody uses PI addresses
22 matches
Mail list logo
