[address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andreas Schachtner
andreas at schachtner.eu
Fri Nov 9 14:51:54 CET 2012
Am Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:49:51 +0100 schrieb Gert Doering <gert at space.net>: ... > Actually, I think the IPRAs are reading something in there that has > not been the intention by the WG (and it should be obvious from the > discussions that it wasn't, because the case "what about a LIR that > has more than one /32?" was never discussed) > > For non-native speakers (like me), the sentence above is perfectly > fine to be interpreted as "... extensions of *any of these* > allocations up to a total of /29..." and not "... up to a total of > a /29 across all IPv6 stock the LIR has". From an old programmers paradigm "be liberate on what you receive and strict what you send" I would interpret the policy like the NCC (to be on the safe side). Under business and policy aspects, your reasoning absolutely makes sense to me. +1 for your suggestion. Andreas -- Andreas Schachtner afs Holding GmbH communication technologies & solutions http://afs-com.de/ Geschaeftsfuehrer Andreas Schachtner HRB 15448, Amtsgericht Dortmund
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]