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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2009-08
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-08
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-08
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Freedman
david.freedman at uk.clara.net
Mon Jun 8 22:04:59 CEST 2009
Can I just ask for clarification of the following: "the LIR must demonstrate the unique routing requirements for the PI assignment." and "The LIR must return the IPv6 PI assignment within a period of six months should the unique routing requirements for the PI assignment no longer be met." 1. does this mean that the following question from RIPE-468 is no longer valid for routing? "% Is the End User requesting extra address space for routing and/or % administrative reasons? (Yes/No)" 2. Will this include the space not being routed at all? or does this require that the space be routed? Regards, Dave. ------------------------------------------------ David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Limited http://www.clara.net -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net on behalf of Frederic Sent: Mon 6/8/2009 20:07 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08 hi, we support this proposal. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-08.html bst regards. Frederic -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090608/a7229a37/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-08
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-08
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]