[address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 16, Issue 16

From: address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net · Wed Jan 2 15:20:32 CET 2013

Hi RIPE,

Yes it does make sense that's why I vote in support of this proposal.

Regards,
Mehar Iftikhar Ahmad

> From: address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net
> Subject: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 16, Issue 16
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 12:00:02 +0100
> 
> Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to
> 	address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6	/32 to /29 on
>       a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) (Emilio Madaio)
>    2. Re: [policy-announce] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension
>       of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
>       (Richard Hartmann)
>    3. Re: 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of	IPv6/32 to /29
>       on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) (Jamie Stallwood)
>    4. Re: 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6	/32 to /29
>       on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) (Erik Bais)
>    5. Re: [policy-announce] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension
>       of IPv6	/32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
>       (Julian Seifert)
>    6. Re: 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29
>       on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) (David Freedman)
>    7. Re: 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29
>       on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) (James Blessing)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:12:50 +0100
> From: "Emilio Madaio" <emadaio at ripe.net>
> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of
> 	IPv6	/32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
> To: policy-announce at ripe.net
> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Message-ID: <E1TpcMU-0000QD-FA at puppy.ripe.net>
> 
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> 
> A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation
> and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion.
> 
> 
> You can find the full proposal at:
> 
>     https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10
> 
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 28 January 2013.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Emilio Madaio
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:22:43 +0100
> From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-10 New Policy
> 	Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR
> 	basis)
> To: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAD77+gSeLow2QyaVDNnCcBmmkxw2-CA9ebxac69TopbepLnCww at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Support.
> 
> Anything else would be unfair and relatively easy to work around.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Richard
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20121231/0ff18fc5/attachment-0001.html 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:24:26 -0000
> From: "Jamie Stallwood" <Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal
> 	(Extension of	IPv6/32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
> To: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>, <policy-announce at ripe.net>
> Message-ID:
> 	<7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A14040687E847 at bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
> 
> I support this proposal.
> 
> Kind regards
> Jamie Stallwood
> 
> Jamie Stallwood 
> Security Specialist
> Imerja Limited
> 
> Tel: 0844 225 2888
> Mob: 07795 840385
> Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com
> 
> NIC Handle: uk.imerja.JS7259-RIPE
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net
> [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Emilio Madaio
> Sent: 31 December 2012 10:13
> To: policy-announce at ripe.net
> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of
> IPv6/32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
> 
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> 
> A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation
> and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion.
> 
> 
> You can find the full proposal at:
> 
>     https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10
> 
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 28 January 2013.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Emilio Madaio
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Imerja Limited
> Tel: 0870 8611488 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com
> 
> Registered Office: Paragon House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG
> 
> Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119
> VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22
> ISO Registered Firm No. GB2001527
> 
> This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or 
> organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and 
> confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you
> should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it,
> since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
> received this transmission in error please notify the sender 
> immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail 
> messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses
> which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has
> been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any
> liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You
> are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any
> attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely
> those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited 
> unless otherwise stated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:36:02 +0000
> From: Erik Bais <erik at bais.name>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal
> 	(Extension of IPv6	/32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
> To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID:
> 	<862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C09403FE8 at e2010-mbx-c1n2.exchange2010.nl>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I support the policy proposal. 
> 
> And to all on the list, have a great 2013 !!
> 
> Happy New Year. 
> 
> Regards,
> Erik Bais 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Emilio Madaio
> Sent: maandag 31 december 2012 11:13
> To: policy-announce at ripe.net
> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
> 
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> 
> A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion.
> 
> 
> You can find the full proposal at:
> 
>     https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10
> 
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 28 January 2013.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Emilio Madaio
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:47:16 +0000
> From: Julian Seifert <js at dacor.de>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-10 New Policy
> 	Proposal (Extension of IPv6	/32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR
> 	basis)
> To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>,
> 	"policy-announce at ripe.net" <policy-announce at ripe.net>
> Message-ID:
> 	<71875FE4961EEE40BA4AACF7168091DE1CC378D3 at exchange.suecdacor.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Support.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
>   Julian
> 
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: policy-announce-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:policy-announce-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Emilio Madaio
> Gesendet: Montag, 31. Dezember 2012 11:13
> An: policy-announce at ripe.net
> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Betreff: [policy-announce] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
> 
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> 
> A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion.
> 
> 
> You can find the full proposal at:
> 
>     https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10
> 
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 28 January 2013.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Emilio Madaio
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:52:44 +0000
> From: David Freedman <david.freedman at uk.clara.net>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal
> 	(Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
> To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID:
> 	<E2B120470A420C49A1CB4F6D01C013F875B692FB at srvgrexmb02.claranet.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> support.
> 
> dave.
> 
> On 31/12/2012 10:12, "Emilio Madaio" <emadaio at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> >Dear Colleagues,
> >
> >
> >A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation
> >and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion.
> >
> >
> >You can find the full proposal at:
> >
> >    https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10
> >
> >We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> ><address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 28 January 2013.
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Emilio Madaio
> >Policy Development Officer
> >RIPE NCC
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:56:15 +0000
> From: James Blessing <james.blessing at despres.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal
> 	(Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
> To: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAL5RSTKeoH3=7fvQs9EosdH6QcA0k3MCdGfcVhCJ-3UA1mT-jQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Support
> 
> J
> 
> 
> On 31 December 2012 10:12, Emilio Madaio <emadaio at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> >
> > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation
> > and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion.
> >
> >
> > You can find the full proposal at:
> >
> >     https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10
> >
> > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> > <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 28 January 2013.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Emilio Madaio
> > Policy Development Officer
> > RIPE NCC
> >
> > --
> >
> > James Blessing
> > 07989 039 476
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20121231/9ce13062/attachment-0001.html 
> 
> End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 16, Issue 16
> *************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130102/ca19394e/attachment.html>