[address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Stolpe
stolpe at resilans.se
Tue Aug 26 09:35:22 CEST 2014
I mostly agree with Elvis. On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > Hi, > > On 25/08/14 14:59, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie >> <mailto:nick at inex.ie>> wrote: >> >> On 25/08/2014 19:47, Gert Doering wrote: >> > while I can understand that beaches and drinks are more >> attractive than >> > policy work, we have a proposal here that needs a bit of caring - >> > this one is in Review Phase until Friday, and has received >> exactly one >> > comment yet (strong support). I could use a *bit* more feedback >> here... >> >> >> Whoops, sorry about that! >> >> Beach-and-drink time was over a month ago! > some are still at the beach :) >> >> >> tl;dr: don't support as-is, but could be convinced >> >> -- >> >> I support the idea as it's a bugfix policy proposal, but the >> wording is >> need to be improved. At the moment, it ties the policy to the >> idea of the >> RIPE NCC being the routing police. Probably this isn't the intention. >> >> >> I think you're right about that. > I would go as far as to say, as long as you have/use IPv6 (no matter which > color and from whom) you can request the last /22. I would also accept a > change proposal that would completely remove this requirement and believe > it's even a better idea. >> >> >> It may be better to consider alternative wording, e.g. >> >> > An allocation will only be made to a LIR if the LIR has already been >> > assigned or allocated an IPv6 address block from a RIR. >> >> Even better, remove the requirement completely as it's pointless. >> > +1 >> >> I'm not convinced that it's a pointless requirement, but I concur that the >> wording needs to be changed a bit before I feel comfortable with it. >> >> As it is, however, I don't feel strongly either way about this part of the >> policy, but a clearer policy is something I'll support. :) >> -- >> Jan > > Kind regards, > Elvis > -- > <http://v4escrow.net> > > > Elvis Daniel Velea > > > Chief Business Analyst > > Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis at v4escrow.net> > US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 > EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 > > Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, > proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this > email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the > original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited. > > mvh Daniel Stolpe _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe at resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]