[address-policy-wg] 2016-05 I agree

• Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 I agree
• Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase: Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Newton, Mathew C1 (ISS Des-Arch33-Arch) Mathew.Newton643 at mod.gov.uk
Wed Feb 15 17:11:33 CET 2017

Dear WG,

Apologies for my belated follow-up; I agree with Sascha's position below so that's a +1 from me.

Regards,

Mathew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On
> Behalf Of LIR (VM II 9)
> Sent: 06 February 2017 14:24
> To: 'address-policy-wg at ripe.net' <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 I agree
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> I am in favour of the proposal 2016-05. In my opinion it makes sense to align
> and harmonize the policies for initial and subsequent IPv6 allocations and I
> believe that this policy proposal will achieve such a harmonization.
> 
> All the best
> Sascha Knabe
> 
> Bundesverwaltungsamt
> Local Internet Registry de.government

• Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 I agree
• Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase: Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ address-policy-wg Archives ]