[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
S.P.Zeidler
spz at serpens.de
Wed Sep 8 15:49:57 CEST 2010
Thus wrote Denis Walker (denis at ripe.net): > Marco Hogewoning wrote: > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 4:06 PM, <kpn-ip-office at kpn.com> <kpn-ip-office at kpn.com> wrote: > >> I have some questions about the proposal > >> Question 1: > >> Why was chosen for "SUB-ASSIGNED PA" and not for "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" or even "LIR-PARTITIONED PA", [...] [...] > One is to > aggregate many individual customers into an assignment block. It's a rather bikeshedding issue, but maybe pick AGGREGATED PA? LIR-PARTITIONED PA would also be easily understandable, but is a mouthful. :) regards, spz
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]