Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
-
To: "Marco Hogewoning" marcoh@localhost
-
From: "Leo Vegoda" leo@localhost
-
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:54:44 +0100
-
Cc: michael.dillon@localhost, address-policy-wg@localhost
-
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=1JHqHKfaNuX1FC/KKKq5/eHW/ojdrMRkOO234lnMgww=; b=mIgJ/BOQsbWr9YzHfZP6KPPq8bucba4AMEvP34cwPYzcPiO2E3v7TlVU8P35FyWDa0QLprHMxTrhSEfFuZkgpTCSMCBdOLQPBoI1tOJaLAYtLCeyjsPtprBPxfKusw3k3T5NRsB1cIxwc6gz/n/A4wT0SL2Uu+CqhZIqVpZcCP0=
-
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=GUSFEAE+4B2rnVqou8/87xBHQhJUn5X1GF6TIMk5yY8cfYqcDpdO8KbpjGIWGODDoSYfnhG+aUedyIuPsmji+6iaYLLLZwSFl+sOjrrsjt5yR5+P5p/EkiyjX/zGnrhm6oJffhJwcsrLrv1XwQ0+pucWokDoyhnt0I75R+t9W0M=
On Jan 16, 2008 2:09 PM, Marco Hogewoning marcoh@localhost wrote:
[...]
> Not a bad proposal, but where does this actually differ from becoming
> a LIR, except for a change in minimum allocation sizes ?
This was the point I was trying to raise at the last RIPE meeting. I
think it may make sense to make a scalable policy that doesn't have a
distinction between LIRs and enterprises. The border between the two
is porous and a policy that doesn't assume LIRs being significantly
larger than enterprises may be called for.
I would suggest that instead of two policies we should have one.
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/vegoda-v6-policy.pdf
Thoughts?
Leo Vegoda
|
you are here: RIPE -> RIPE Maillists > Archives
