[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Wed Sep 8 22:20:58 CEST 2010
On 8 sep 2010, at 15:49, S.P.Zeidler wrote: > Thus wrote Denis Walker (denis at ripe.net): > >> Marco Hogewoning wrote: >>> On Sep 6, 2010, at 4:06 PM, <kpn-ip-office at kpn.com> <kpn-ip-office at kpn.com> wrote: >>>> I have some questions about the proposal >>>> Question 1: >>>> Why was chosen for "SUB-ASSIGNED PA" and not for "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" or even "LIR-PARTITIONED PA", [...] > > [...] > >> One is to >> aggregate many individual customers into an assignment block. > > It's a rather bikeshedding issue, but maybe pick AGGREGATED PA? > LIR-PARTITIONED PA would also be easily understandable, but is a mouthful. :) I was about to come with the same suggestion. As said, the current one basically is just a placeholder as we needed something in the revision 1 document. 'AGGREGATED XX' is pretty much unique and clearly describes the whole purpose. MarcoH
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]