[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 ]
Maximilian Wilhelm
max at rfc2324.org
Thu Oct 19 15:33:18 CEST 2017
Anno domini 2017 Marco Schmidt scripsit: Hi Marco, > Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification" is now in the Review Phase. Cool, thanks for that! > The goal of this proposal is to re-define the term "sub-assignment" for IPv6. > > This proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion and is now at version v2.0. > Some of the differences from version v1.0 include: > - the scope is extended to all IPv6 assignments > - it defines that the provision of separate IPv6 addresses is not considered a sub-assignment > > The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 > > And the draft documents at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04/draft There seem's to be some glitch in the comparison between the proposal versions. The diff seems to be in the wrong direction. Could you have a look at that? Thanks! Best Max -- "I have to admit I've always suspected that MTBWTF would be a more useful metric of real-world performance." -- Valdis Kletnieks on NANOG
- 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 ]