[address-policy-wg] New correct proposal (Was: 2008-01/2008-02)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New correct proposal (Was: 2008-01/2008-02)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeroen Massar
jeroen at unfix.org
Wed Jan 16 12:50:29 CET 2008
michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: [..] > Here is my wish list for IPv6 PI: > > - No PI assignments via LIRs. LIRs only manage PA IPv6. > - special membership in RIPE with an annual fee for PI holders > - contract signed between RIPE and PI holders that covers fee > payments, and revocation/return of address blocks > - special known superblock from which all PI allocations are made > so that people can manage their filters > - /48 minimum PI allocation but larger aggregate is also possible > - contact every IPv4 PI holder by email and inform them of the > new rules for IPv6 PI allocations > > In my opinion that should be followed by another policy change > which requires RIPE membership, annual fee payment and a signed > contract for any future ASN assignments or IPv4 PI address blocks. Now *THAT* is a solid policy proposal that I would be willing to support. The 2008-01/2008-02 though should be binned directly and should have never seen daylight in the first place. (though it is good to again start discussions of course :) Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20080116/5d1461b0/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New correct proposal (Was: 2008-01/2008-02)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]