[address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tim Streater
tim.streater at dante.org.uk
Thu Jan 5 15:13:43 CET 2006
At 12:24 04/01/2006, Jeroen Massar wrote: >*** PGP Signature Status: good >*** Signer: Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org> (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
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]