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
