[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 Review Period extended until 22 November (Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Richard Hartmann
richih.mailinglist at gmail.com
Mon Nov 1 23:55:34 CET 2010
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 21:45, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote: > True, but we have found ways of gauging utilization of IPv4 addresses > without too much effort. Their are some fairly low-touch requirements > that could be applied here for IPv6 addresses as well. Such as; > entry's in WHOIS, network diagrams/plans, subnetting plans, an > announcement in the BGP table, etc. All those are easy to trivial to fake. That being said, adding them is not a bad thing as long as valid requests are not held up too much. > It's very possible that we are too late to make an appreciable > difference to standard allocations, agreed. Hopefully this does solve > itself but it may be worth considering such a requirement WRT not only > standard allocations but also post-depletion transfers (i.e. a change > to section 5.3 would effect transfers under section 5.5). Not a bad idea. I think I like it :) > $0.02 Itym €0.02 ;) Richard
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 Review Period extended until 22 November (Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]