[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Tue Apr 5 14:31:32 CEST 2005
On 4-apr-05, at 15:48, Gert Doering wrote: >> I don't think I agree here. So, 1-man consulting companies, providing >> web hosting for one customer could fulfill the criteria for a /32? > If that enterprise is willing to pay RIPE fees for it, it would > qualify. >> Looks like every enterprise out there would also get a /32. > If they are willing to undergo the necessary paperwork, and pay the > yearly fees, yes. Either having very many people get /32s is harmful, or it isn't. How does paying the RIPE fee move this from "harmful" to "non-harmful"? >> So, I'm opposed to the policy change. Me too.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]