[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 Last Call for Comments (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Thu Sep 29 09:34:56 CEST 2011
Hi Dan, > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote: >> The intention of this is to be able to analyze the reasons for organizations to request PI space and to make requesters think twice when requesting PI space. > > I support the policy change, even if (out of the blue for me) there is > a additional burden of explaining my request for documentation. As I > understood, explanations for PIv6 requests are to be documented by > RIPE, but those explanations won't be a reason to reject requests if > all other requirements are meet. That is what I suggested, but... > I'd like to encourage everyone to > make clear that this is optional. > > Nevertheless, this is not what was actually proposed, is it? ... my suggestion caused confusion and comments, so I'm not suggesting it anymore :-) What is proposed is exactly what is described in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02. The only thing we ask the NCC is to regularly report / provide statistics on the effects of this policy. Thanks, Sander -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2084 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110929/579ee088/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 Last Call for Comments (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]