[Apwg-ipv6-papi] policy proposal done?

[Daniel Stolpe]

On Fri, 30 Aug 2013, Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 02:05:44PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
>>> Well...  "quite a lot of entities" is exaggerating a bit, I think - I still
>>> haven't seen anyone show up on the APWG list and just plainly *propose*
>>> that we remove the "no subassignments!" restriction on the PI policy.
>>>
>>> I'd assume that if this we really hurting that much, someone might propose
>>> to change it...
>>
>> Just ignoring it is easier...
>
> True, but even then we should have heard more complaints at IPv6 conferences
> and such.  Eerie silence...

Well, I see I forgot a major point here. The entities I'm talking about 
are generally not LIR:s (even though some of them are becoming recently) 
and they try to avoid direct contact with the NCC for some reason.

This is a completely different case but the general idea in the Swedish 
network industry is that you should minimize NCC contact in order to stay 
mentally sane. ;-)

Well, well. It means there is a busines case for people like us.

Cheers,

Daniel

_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe           Tel:  08 - 688 11 81                   stolpe at resilans.se
Resilans AB             Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63            http://www.resilans.se/
Box 13 054							      556741-1193
103 02 Stockholm