Thus spake "Tim Chown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:39:25PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > I also believe that we should be watching the IPv6 PI policy
> > proposal at ARIN et al; if the ARIN proposal is approved (and
> > other RIRs follow suit), I see little reason to continu
Tim Chown wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 08:52:26AM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:39:25PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I also believe that we should be watching the IPv6 PI policy proposal at
ARIN et al; if the ARIN proposal is approved (and other RIRs follow suit), I
see littl
Dear All,
I totally agree with Tim Chown's observation.The issue
of ostracisation or betterstil limitations to who
gains access to the afore-mentioned should be
citically looked into.
Sincerely,
Doo Timbir.
08036577004[mob.]
--- Tim Chown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 08
Dear All,
I totally agree with Tim Chown's observation.The issue
of ostracisation or betterstil limitations to who
gains access to the afore-mentioned should be
citically looked into.
Sincerely,
Doo Timbir.
--- Tim Chown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 08:52:26AM +0100, Ti
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 08:52:26AM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:39:25PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >
> > I also believe that we should be watching the IPv6 PI policy proposal at
> > ARIN et al; if the ARIN proposal is approved (and other RIRs follow suit), I
> > see lit
For info, the copy of the ARIN proposal I have seen says:
" 6.11 Assignments to End-sites with Autonomous System Numbers
Any end-site which meets the current criteria for assignment of an
autonomous system number (ASN) shall also qualify for one IPv6
prefix assignment of
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:39:25PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> I also believe that we should be watching the IPv6 PI policy proposal at
> ARIN et al; if the ARIN proposal is approved (and other RIRs follow suit), I
> see little reason to continue work on centrally-assigned ULAs.
I disagree.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:21:24 -0400
Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IPv6 WG,
> This is a status update on the centrally-allocated ULAs defined in
> draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt. At this time the chairs believe it
> is prudent to gain operational experience with the locally-
Thus spake "Brian Haberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> IPv6 WG,
> This is a status update on the centrally-allocated ULAs defined in
> draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt. At this time the chairs believe it
> is prudent to gain operational experience with the locally-assigned
> ULA specification (
I agree that this is the best approach right now.
Brian C
Brian Haberman wrote:
IPv6 WG,
This is a status update on the centrally-allocated ULAs defined in
draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt. At this time the chairs believe it
is prudent to gain operational experience with the locally-assi
IPv6 WG,
This is a status update on the centrally-allocated ULAs defined in
draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt. At this time the chairs believe it
is prudent to gain operational experience with the locally-assigned
ULA specification (which is currently in the RFC Editor's Queue)
before contin
11 matches
Mail list logo
