[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] Clear subject lines for policy discussions, was 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 17:12:16 CET 2011
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 04:07:42PM +0000, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > > So, according to third point I can create inet6num object with /36 size > > and status "AGGREGATED-BY-LIR" under my allocation, and then another > > inet6num object with /37 size and status "AGGREGATED-BY-LIR" under this > > bigger one and then another one and so on. There is nothing about two > > levels less specific object. But maybe I don't understand this correctly. > > You are righrt, it seems a bit strange ,without the policy that says only one level is allowed to it next to it (it's in another document). Please also take a look at the mail from Denis Walker on how the RIPE NCC will implement this and will be checking the grandparent object as well. That explains everything. I support this proposal. 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] Clear subject lines for policy discussions, was Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]