[address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tim Streater
tim.streater at dante.org.uk
Thu Sep 28 12:28:24 CEST 2006
At 10:56 27/09/2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >Hi all, > >Sorry confused stats. Ignore the previous email ... > >As the discussion period for this proposal >(http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html) is almost over, I >will like to ask for the latest inputs in order to further decide how to >proceed. > >Filiz arranged some stats about the discussion (thanks a lot for that !) >last July, and afterwards, even if the discussion period has been extended, >I don't recall having seen new comments. > >The stats don't include my own postings: > > >>> - there were 9 posts from 8 individuals about it. > >>> > >>> - 5 people supported it. 1 of these made some comments though, that he > >>> prefers a longer prefix than a /32 clearly in his mail. > >>> > >>> - 1 person stated he supports "PI" but he is not supporting this proposal. > >>> > >>> - 2 people said "No". > >So someone else will like to say anything new or clarify their view in favor >or opposition to the proposal ? Jordi, I also support this proposal. -- Tim
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]