[address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
michael.dillon at bt.com
michael.dillon at bt.com
Wed May 5 16:00:42 CEST 2010
> "Using addresses from a PI block to number other parties' devices is > permitted as long as these devices are connected to the > same network, > documentation about the usage can be presented to the RIPE NCC, and > full responsibility for the addresses (abuse handling etc) > is done by > the PI holder". Such a long explanation! Right now it says this: The PI assignment cannot be further assigned to other organisations. How about changing it like this: The PI assignment cannot be further assigned to other organisations unless their network infrastructure is wholly contained within the same building as the applicant for a PI assignment. If the word "wholly" seems to old-fashioned, replace it with "completely". Or you could say The PI assignment can be used for any devices connected to the network on the PI applicant's premises such as a data centre, regardless of who owns and controls those devices. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]