[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] [Ext] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ondřej Caletka
Ondrej.Caletka at cesnet.cz
Thu Oct 19 16:06:55 CEST 2017
+1 for this proposal. The only thing that I'm little bit scared of is the last paragraph of the section A of the impact analysis. Some operators could use this proposal as an apology for not deploying the network properly, like when they use (pseudo-)bridges instead of routers, just to avoid "sub-delegation". But I don't think this is a big problem, especially now when most entities are becoming LIRs just to get some more v4 addresses. I believe this proposal goes in the right direction and conforms with common sense on what should be assignments used for. -- Ondřej Caletka -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3718 bytes Desc: Elektronicky podpis S/MIME URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20171019/42b5d507/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ext] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]