[lacnog] [SPAM]Fwd: draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites WGLC

[Arturo Servin]

	Perdón quise decir "el 6177 es una actualización del 3177".

Slds,
as

On 29 Mar 2011, at 00:03, Arturo Servin wrote:

> 
> 	Si, el RFC6177 es una actualización del 6177.
> 
> 	La introducción del 6177 habla sobre los cambios y las diferencias en general entre ambos documentos.
> 
> Slds	
> -as
> 	
> 	
> 
> On 29 Mar 2011, at 00:00, Nicolás Ruiz wrote:
> 
>> Este es RFC que resultó de
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites
>> 
>> correcto? Hay alguna forma de saber que cambió entre una version del
>> draft y la edición final del RFC?
>> 
>> nicolas
>> 
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Arturo Servin <aservin en lacnic.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Creo que este documento es importante compartir y escuchar opiniones.
>>> Saludos,
>>> .asn
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: Fred Baker <fred en cisco.com>
>>> Date: 24 October 2010 16:00:46 GMT-02:00
>>> To: IPv6 operators forum <ipv6-ops en lists.cluenet.de>
>>> Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites WGLC
>>> Reply-To: v6ops en ietf.org
>>> 
>>> The IETF IPv6 Operations Working Group is initiating a two week working
>>> group last call of
>>> 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites
>>> "IPv6 Address Assignment to End Sites", Thomas Narten, Geoff Huston,
>>> Rosalea Roberts
>>> 
>>> In essence, this is a change to the advice that the IETF gave the RIRs in
>>> RFC 3177. We had indicated at that time that we believed that allocating a
>>> /48 to each end site was important, for various reasons. We at this point
>>> believe that a better model allows the LIR to allocate diffrent length
>>> prefixes to their customers in accordance with the network's needs.
>>> 
>>> If you find issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding
>>> additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to
>>> v6ops en ietf.org.
>>> 
>>> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the document
>>> as well as its content. If you have read the document and believe it to be
>>> of operational utility, that is also an important comment to make.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LACNOG mailing list
>>> LACNOG en lacnic.net
>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>>> 
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LACNOG mailing list
>> LACNOG en lacnic.net
>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog