This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[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 ]
Leo Vegoda
leo at bind.org
Wed Jan 16 15:54:44 CET 2008
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? Leo Vegoda
- 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 ]