[address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Thu Apr 16 16:33:10 CEST 2009
On 16 apr 2009, at 16:23, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 04:18:34PM +0200, Marco Hogewoning wrote: >> On 16 apr 2009, at 10:11, Jerzy Pawlus wrote: >>> I think we can modify your idea slightly. Let's assign >>> 10 'scoring units' for a second and subsequent /32 not fulfilling >>> HD-Ratio. >>> It will effectively move an LIR to a higher billing category. >> >> Let's not do that, as it would simply reduce the whole policy to you >> get as much addresses as you can afford instead of you get the >> addresses you need. Skipping HD-ratio in favor of scoring units is >> bad, very bad. > > Which is what we have right now. Setup new (another) LIR (money). Get > allocation. Merge LIRs (or not). Which is: "you get as much address > as > you can afford". In which case HD-ratio will apply, or at least I assume RIPE-301, 2.6 would equally apply to IPv6 as it does to IPv4. Groet, MarcoH (trimmed the CC a bit to avoid duplicates)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]