[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ciprian Nica
office at ip-broker.uk
Fri Oct 21 14:15:51 CEST 2016
+1 from me on this I think that at ripe72 someone gave an example with a situation where this would be a problem and the policy would solve it. That's what we need. Clearly identify a real problem and propose a policy to fix it. Great job ! Ciprian On Friday, October 21, 2016, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification" > is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to define sub-assignments in IPv6 PI > assignments as subnets of /64 and shorter. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg at ripe.net <javascript:;>> before 21 November 2016. > > Regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161021/42c65fab/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]