[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] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Garry Glendown
garry at nethinks.com
Wed Jan 16 15:33:59 CET 2008
Stream Service || Mark Scholten wrote: > A PI assignments via LIR's should be possible (make both options possible?) > if you ask me and also the costs will go via the LIR in that case. > ... for which you'd have to have some kind of provision to transfer the billing partner in case the user switches LIRs ... or gets a new provider that isn't a RIPE LIR ... > A holder off PI space should be allowed to offer PA space to clients (but no > special routing for the clients!). So it is only different in the RIPE NCC > whois database and not in the routing table. > What do you mean here? Assign subnets out of a PI to customers? Why should RIPE even bother getting involved? -garry
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New correct proposal (Was: 2008-01/2008-02)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]