This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Wed Nov 8 12:28:55 CET 2017
Hi Nick, Fully agree, and I’ve been working around that idea for about a year already … I’ve something in the kitchen, but still not mature enought. I’m waiting for NCC budget figures to be able to make a proposal that is sustainable in the long term. I know “money” is not related to policies, but in this case, even if is only rational behind the proposal text, I think it is a must. Nevertheless, my opinion is that that change may take, as you said, a longer period of discussion, and I will like to make sure, meanwhile, cases such as Max one, aren’t “in hold” for deploying IPv6. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> Responder a: <nick at foobar.org> Fecha: miércoles, 8 de noviembre de 2017, 12:24 Para: Gert Doering <gert at space.net> CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification) Gert Doering wrote: > both would work to solve the (real) problem at hand, and Jordi's approach > would certainly much easier than trying to come up with unambiguous wording > to "permit some, disallow other" use cases. this is a restatement of the long-standing question about whether the RIPE community should continue with the idea of differentiating between PA and PI address space. If we're going to go down this road, this is a substantial change to make, with far-reaching consequences, and it needs a good deal more attention than a couple of lines in the ipv6 policy doc. Nick ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]