[ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Wed Jan 26 13:06:01 CET 2011
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 09:14:47AM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > On 1/26/11 8:28 AM, Daniel Roesen wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 09:40:54PM -0800, David Kessens wrote: >>> We have not received any input so far whether you support draft policy >>> 2010-06. >> Perhaps it's a good idea to at least mention the title of the policy >> proposal in the "last call" announcements so that folks can quickly >> check wether they might have an opinion to voice or not. > Agree. > > On the other hand, it took me 20 seconds to find it. > > For everyone reference and help (saving 20 seconds): > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-06.html Under 3.0 section there is: "When needed, more specific inet6num objects are allowed to indicate a different assignment size within a certain range however only one level of more specifics is allowed." However rules put into 4.0 section allows to create multiple levels of inet6num objects with AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status. Is it ok? Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]