[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): SV: [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 12:07:59 CEST 2010
On Sep 10, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Bertrand Yvain wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 09:44:18AM +0200, Marco Hogewoning wrote: >> How do people feel about AGGREGATED-BY-LIR ? Stays in line with the >> current ones and describes the purpose. > > I don't really appreciate the "BY-LIR" thing as there is no requirement > (that I know of) for the object to be maintained by a LIR. Section 4.0 > of the draft confirms this stating that such a block can be a one level > more specific of an ASSIGNED inet6num. > > The main idea of the draft is that assignation details are maintained > out of the RIPE database. > > I would favor things like: > > - ASSIGNED-EXTERNAL > - ASSIGNED-AGGREGATED > - AGGREGATED-BY-ORG > > But none of them is really good. Regarding the LIR part, as you can't make assignments from a PI block it will always be PA and therefor LIR (or SUB-ALLOCATED). 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): SV: [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 ]