[address-policy-wg] New correct proposal (Was: 2008-01/2008-02)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New correct proposal (Was: 2008-01/2008-02)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New correct proposal (Was: 2008-01/2008-02)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Shane Kerr
shane at time-travellers.org
Wed Jan 16 13:52:42 CET 2008
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 12:50:29PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > [..] > >Here is my wish list for IPv6 PI: > > > >- No PI assignments via LIRs. LIRs only manage PA IPv6. > >- special membership in RIPE with an annual fee for PI holders > >- contract signed between RIPE and PI holders that covers fee > > payments, and revocation/return of address blocks > >- special known superblock from which all PI allocations are made > > so that people can manage their filters > >- /48 minimum PI allocation but larger aggregate is also possible > >- contact every IPv4 PI holder by email and inform them of the > > new rules for IPv6 PI allocations > > > >In my opinion that should be followed by another policy change > >which requires RIPE membership, annual fee payment and a signed > >contract for any future ASN assignments or IPv4 PI address blocks. > > Now *THAT* is a solid policy proposal that I would be willing to support. I agree completely. -- Shane
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New correct proposal (Was: 2008-01/2008-02)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New correct proposal (Was: 2008-01/2008-02)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]