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] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Thu Mar 20 20:04:19 CET 2008
On 20/03/2008 17:57, "Leo Vegoda" <leo.vegoda at icann.org> wrote: [...] > If an LIR gets an IPv6 allocation this way and does not want it or use it, > might their annual fee rise as a result? It's important not to move someone > from the 'extra small' to the 'small' billing category because they received > an IPv6 allocation they did not request. It looks like I missed the statement about this in the analysis the RIPE NCC provided and the answer is "probably not". Leo
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]