Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
- Next message (by thread): Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk
Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk
Fri Jul 28 11:53:20 CEST 2006
Hi Nick, address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net wrote on 29/07/2006 09:43:17: > > While this increases flexibility it still has an arbritrary feel to it. > > Why 200 assignments? > > Please see: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html > > The intention is to replace the completely arbitrary "200 /48's" with "a > reasonable number of /48's". In fact, they mean the same thing, because > any LIR can have a *plan* to assign 200 x /48s, regardless of whether > this plan is ever going to be implemented or not. I agree with the change in wording in 2006-02, but I don't think they amount to the same thing. The 200 x /48s acts as a psychological barrier preventing many people from asking for IPv6, and none of us wants to lie to the hostmasters, do we? > > But this is not particularly relevant to proposal 2005-08. > True, and I felt I should point out that I didn't support that part of 2005-08. Ian
- Previous message (by thread): Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
- Next message (by thread): Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]