[address-policy-wg] [Ext] Re: proposal to remove IPv6 PI
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ext] Re: proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Thu May 17 02:17:43 CEST 2018
Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: [...] > I think it would actually simplify a lot of those issues. > It doesn't remove the RIR->LIR->End User hierarchy > but it removes the requirement that a LIR provide > connectivity to an End User. Since when has this been a requirement? Section 2.4 of ripe-699 defines LIRs and describes them as "primarily" providing addresses for network services that they provide. Have I misunderstood the policy, or is there currently a requirement that LIR provide network connectivity to the users of the addresses they assign or sub-allocate? Kind regards, Leo Vegoda -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3739 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20180517/3a762e79/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ext] Re: proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]