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]/
Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
- Next message (by thread): Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Sat Jul 29 10:43:17 CEST 2006
> While this increases flexibility it still has an arbritrary feel to it. > Why 200 assignments? Please see: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html The intention is to replace the completely arbitrary "200 /48's" with "a reasonable number of /48's". In fact, they mean the same thing, because any LIR can have a *plan* to assign 200 x /48s, regardless of whether this plan is ever going to be implemented or not. But this is not particularly relevant to proposal 2005-08. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
- Next message (by thread): Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]