On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 05:13:20PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> On one hand, I don't quite see why the current requirement for IPv6 PA is
> there, and therefore it seems obvious that having IPv6 PI should be a valid
> requirement as well.

Historically it was put in there as an encouragement for "last /8" LIRs
to "do something with IPv6"...

I know that, but that's not quite what I meant.

What I meant is that I don't see why the current requirement for IPv6 PA is there, but that the current document didn't already have IPv6 PI as a valid requirement.

Not either-or.

--
Jan