[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 ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Fri Sep 10 09:44:18 CEST 2010
On Sep 8, 2010, at 10:20 PM, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > > On 8 sep 2010, at 15:49, S.P.Zeidler wrote: > >> 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. :) > > > I was about to come with the same suggestion. As said, the current one basically is just a placeholder as we needed something in the revision 1 document. > > 'AGGREGATED XX' is pretty much unique and clearly describes the whole purpose. How do people feel about AGGREGATED-BY-LIR ? Stays in line with the current ones and describes the purpose. Grtx Marco
- 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 ]