Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6

[Tim Streater <tim.streater@localhost]

At 12:24 04/01/2006, Jeroen Massar wrote:

>*** PGP Signature Status: good
>*** Signer: Jeroen Massar jeroen@localhost (Invalid)
>*** Signed: 04/01/2006 12:24:07
>*** Verified: 05/01/2006 14:12:53
>*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
>
>Marc van Selm wrote:
>> On Wednesday 04 January 2006 11:59, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> 
>> [...]
>>> The IT department or even special Networking department is effectively
>>> the "ISP" for the organization. That they only service customers of
>>> their mother company is not the question here: they service 200 customers.
>> [...]
>[..]
>> Yes you are right and that's how I'd like to treat it for NATO.
>> The definition of an organization and customer is sufficiently flexible.
>> So if flexibility of definitions is acceptable (non of us wants to be a
>> lawyer I presume) than we should (should?) close the thread and move on.
>
>Thus indeed for you (NATO) the thread is closed.
>
>The flexibility of the policy was put in place to allow various setups
>to be meant for this policy. But there are apparently other
>organizations who do not fulfill the current policies requirements but
>do need address space. These folks *DO* need to come forward and raise
>their voices and specify how they don't fit in the current policy and
>how much address space they need.

I thought I already did this. 

-- Tim