SV: [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 ]
Andreas Larsen
andreas.larsen at ip-only.se
Fri Sep 10 13:10:34 CEST 2010
+1 // Andreas Andreas Larsen AS12552 IP-Only Telecommunication AB| Postadress: 753 81 UPPSALA | Besöksadress: S:t Persgatan 6, Uppsala | Telefon: +46 (0)18 843 10 00 | Direkt: +46 (0)18 843 10 56 www.ip-only.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] För Marco Hogewoning Skickat: den 10 september 2010 09:44 Till: ipv6-wg Ämne: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments) 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 ]