This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Tue Apr 5 14:31:32 CEST 2005
On 4-apr-05, at 15:48, Gert Doering wrote: >> I don't think I agree here. So, 1-man consulting companies, providing >> web hosting for one customer could fulfill the criteria for a /32? > If that enterprise is willing to pay RIPE fees for it, it would > qualify. >> Looks like every enterprise out there would also get a /32. > If they are willing to undergo the necessary paperwork, and pay the > yearly fees, yes. Either having very many people get /32s is harmful, or it isn't. How does paying the RIPE fee move this from "harmful" to "non-harmful"? >> So, I'm opposed to the policy change. Me too.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]