[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Wed Jan 11 15:55:44 CET 2012
On 1/11/12 3:42 PM, Martin Stanislav wrote: >> I think the price difference in LIR membership will probably make them >> think - more resources, bigger LIR ;) > > That's something for a requester to think about. Hi, Exactly. It's up to how we define charging schema, but basically, yes, you are right. > > The minimal change Nick talks about above and tracking the reason > of usage is also of possible interest to the rest of the community. > Well it rather seems like a minority of it so far. > > The proposed policy change reads like this: > No questions asked if the requested IPv6 address space size (to be) > allocated to a LIR is>=/32&& <=/29 whatever the intended usage reason is, > e.g. the LIR's customer base size, a need for a transition technology. > Have I missed anything ? No. That's correct understanding. :) Cheers, Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]