[address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)

<all hats off>

This is a bit of a complicated hat situation. The RIPE NCC merely executes
policy set by the community, so with my board hat on I find it difficult
to go as far as even offering suggestions. While I do sympathise with the
rationale behind the proposal, doing it this way strikes me as having an
awful lot of (unintended?) side effects. I personally don't have a better
suggestion to achieve resolution of the problem that this proposal aims to
fix, but at the same time I'm unconvinced that everybody's who's been
supporting the proposal has been doing so for the problem this policy aims
to fix, and not one of its (again, unintended?) side effects.

Remco van Mook




On 28-06-11 13:35, "boggits" <boggits at gmail.com> wrote:

>On 28 June 2011 11:58, Emilio Madaio <emadaio at ripe.net> wrote:
>>
>> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
>>    http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02
>
>Okay I'll bite...
>
>"Although the Board is unconvinced that the chosen approach is the
>best possible solution for the described problem, the decision is of
>course deferred to the RIPE community."
>
>do they have another suggestion?
>
>J
>
>-- 
>
>James Blessing
>07989 039 476
>



This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately.  Equinix Europe Limited.  Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW.  Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.