[address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Tue Feb 10 14:03:43 CET 2009
On 10/02/2009 12:56, Andy Davidson wrote: > There are significant advantages to passing "as is" with the aim of > getting the policy passed quickly, because I do believe there are > networks who are not LIRs waiting for v6 PI to be allowed in Europe. > > If others agree with my premise that an organisation's status with the > NCC should not be a barrier to v6 PI, I will propose the policy to fix. policy parity with ipv4 assignment should be considered here. There is no prohibition in RIPE441 that I can find which prevents LIRs from getting PI assignments. Maybe someone else can advise me otherwise. However, this policy has been on the table for just a couple of months less than 3 years. Let's go ahead with it, as proposed, and the limitation on LIRs can be removed afterwards. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]