[address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Thu Jul 8 17:58:00 CEST 2010
On 7 Jul 2010, at 23:16, Philip Smith wrote: > The proposal has *never* been about PI, ever. Alain and I were requested to include specific wording to that effect. So we did. :-) I'm not sure the words have been picked though. :-) What is the rationale to stop assigning PI ? The PI ban appears to have been introduced between v1 and v2 of this draft, where was the discussion that led to this wording ? The spirit of the proposal appears to be to conserve v4 addressing, to assist with v6 adoption. Fine. But, what about for multihomed end sites that do not need a /22, or have ncc memebrship budget ? What's the *real* difference between an LIR with one end user (their own infrastructure), and a non-LIR with PI ? Other than €1,300 a year... Andy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]