[address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- 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] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Wed Jan 16 16:00:48 CET 2008
On Jan 16, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote: > On Jan 16, 2008 2:09 PM, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at marcoh.net> wrote: > > [...] > >> Not a bad proposal, but where does this actually differ from becoming >> a LIR, except for a change in minimum allocation sizes ? > > This was the point I was trying to raise at the last RIPE meeting. I > think it may make sense to make a scalable policy that doesn't have a > distinction between LIRs and enterprises. The border between the two > is porous and a policy that doesn't assume LIRs being significantly > larger than enterprises may be called for. > > I would suggest that instead of two policies we should have one. > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/vegoda-v6-policy.pdf > > Thoughts? You have my vote :) Not that I think it's a strict requirement but the question could be raised if we need to introduce something like a 'NCC customer' next to the current membership to differentiate between those who are actually running an LIR, assigning end-user blocks from a larger aggregate and people simply having one or two single PI blocks which can't hold any suballocations/assignments. -- MarcoH
- 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] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]