[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Conrad
david.conrad at icann.org
Thu Jun 8 19:02:17 CEST 2006
Tim, On Jun 8, 2006, at 2:20 AM, Tim Streater wrote: > We manage transit networks. We need v6 address space to address our > backbones. This appears to be a different set of criteria than what Jordi was using to justify his proposal. > We expect the allocation to be routed so we could outsource the > management of the backbone to some distant entity. All our > customers are LIRs and therefore need no space from us. We > therefore, in reality, expect to allocate no addresses to no > customers in the next two years. Sounds to me like a modification to the IPv6 IXP allocation policy would meet your unusual scenario. > I could put together a plan contradicting this fact, but it would > be a lie. Why should I lie to the RIR in order to get obtain space? You shouldn't, of course. Rgds, -drc
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]