[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] [policy-announce] 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
Fri Jan 13 10:42:38 CET 2012
On 1/12/12 5:22 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote: >> I think the price difference in LIR membership will probably make >> them think - more resources, bigger LIR ;) > > As the WG does not control the charging scheme it does not seem > sensible to rely on the charging scheme remaining the same for the > effectiveness of a policy created in the WG. Leo, hi thnx for comment. It is not a matter of "relying", as we don't control charging scheme - and charging scheme must not affect the policy itself and vice-versa. Agree fully, but currently I can not see that this affects the proposal - but we need to keep this in mind in the future. 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] [policy-announce] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]