to handle upstream
-Original Message-
From: Fred Baker [mailto:f...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:06 PM
To: Azinger, Marla
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List; draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-rou...@tools.ietf.org;
draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-r...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re
Great. Thank you Fred.
-Original Message-
From: Fred Baker [mailto:f...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:05 AM
To: Azinger, Marla
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List; draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-rou...@tools.ietf.org;
draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-r...@tools.ietf.org
Subject
.
Thank you
Marla
-Original Message-
From: Fred Baker [mailto:f...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:59 AM
To: Azinger, Marla
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List; draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-rou...@tools.ietf.org;
draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-r...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Comments
While some folks will lead us to believe our ability to use up address space is
going to decline, and thus IPv6 appears to be an infinite number to them, there
are those that prefer to simply acknowledge that IPv6 has yet again, a finite
number.
It doesn't hurt to be moderate (not stingy) but
Again, Im not sure why any focus is being put on RIR policy. And at least
within the ARIN RIR what subnet boundary delineates what has to be registered
tends to be a moving target (this is not something we should be referencing).
And as far as registering subnet use, I'm not sure where it
Hello-
This may be nit picky but I have a request to change the title of this document.
Reason why is because in my world and around the RIR's when someone says
subnet model it actually refers to a model of subnetting plans and diagrams.
Could this title possibly be changed to directly reflect
Margaret- Thank you for taking time on this. Not to be pushy, but when do you
plan to have your revision out?
Thank you
Marla
-Original Message-
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:36 PM
To: Per Heldal
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: New
I am not surprised that conservation isn't the number one priority. I just
don't think its wise to ignore conservation. We cant predict Ipv6 consumption
and we don't even know what will exist for technology in the future that will
require IP Addresses.
Cheers!
Marla Azinger
-Original
Thank you Joe. That is where my thoughts went with all of it and its nice to
see it written out line by line.
There is just one point that needs to be considered as well, and that is what
next? While I believe ULA-Central should be used for private VPNs or internal
infrastructure, I also ask
Michael- I dont believe that was the intent and there might be a little
misinterpretation here due to how it was written. The document says:
The designated allocation authority is required to document how they
will meet the requirements described in Section 3.2 of this document
in an
I think a point here that needs to be looked at is this:
If ULA-C is addressed by IETF and then in turn we end up with RIR's responsible
for handing out ULA-C blocks, then those existing policy's such as ARIN's NRPM
6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal Infastructure should be expired and no
11 matches
Mail list logo
