[address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo at bind.org
Wed Jan 16 15:54:44 CET 2008
On Jan 16, 2008 2:09 PM, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at marcoh.net> wrote: [...] > Not a bad proposal, but where does this actually differ from becoming > a LIR, except for a change in minimum allocation sizes ? This was the point I was trying to raise at the last RIPE meeting. I think it may make sense to make a scalable policy that doesn't have a distinction between LIRs and enterprises. The border between the two is porous and a policy that doesn't assume LIRs being significantly larger than enterprises may be called for. I would suggest that instead of two policies we should have one. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/vegoda-v6-policy.pdf Thoughts? Leo Vegoda
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]