[address-policy-wg] 2014-12 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Tue Jan 20 11:02:57 CET 2015
On 20/01/2015 07:08, Tore Anderson wrote: > * "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt at ripe.net> > >> The proposal described in 2014-12, "Allow IPv6 Transfers", is now in >> its Review Phase. > > The need for IPv6 tranfers are probably going to be miniscule as IPv6 > numbers are readily available from the NCC, but nevertheless I think it > makes sense to harmonise the transfer policies for all the different > resource types we have. Can I suggest that this text be clarified slightly: > The block that is to be re-assigned must not be smaller than the minimum > assignment block size at the time of re-assignment. e.g. > The block that is to be re-assigned must not be smaller than the minimum > RIPE NCC IPv6 Provider Independent assignment block size at the time of > re-assignment. Otherwise the intent is ambiguous. Is there a reason that the 24-month cooling down period was removed for this proposal? Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]