[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

To: David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 07:20:57 +0100
Cc: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, Bob Hinden <hinden@IPRG.nokia.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, multi6@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <D68B4B5B-5691-11D7-85A7-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>

Yes. However, the RIRs have come under significant criticism in the past for being perceived as road blocks to IPv6 allocations and have, in fact, reduced the requirements for v6 space. Even in this list, they are criticized for making obtaining address space 'hard'.

Seems they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The RIRs had a period of a complete open policy that I think lasted for two years. 200 applied. I wouldn't blame the RIRs.

- kurtis -

References:
- Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
  - From: David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
Next by Date: RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
Previous by thread: Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
Next by thread: Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread