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] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 – Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Stefan Camilleri
stefan.camilleri at maltanet.net
Tue Oct 24 12:14:18 CEST 2006
Hi, I think that the modifications as proposed, though still not *there* are a big improvement on existing text particularly with the dropping of the requirement for 200 /48 assignments. I fully support the new Proposal Regards. Stephen SC4079-RIPE > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of JORDI > PALET MARTINEZ > Sent: L-Erbgħa, 27 ta' Settembru 2006 12:02 > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and > Assignment Policy (2006-02) > > Hi all, > > Same for this one ... Looking for further inputs to this > policy proposal. > > As the discussion period for this proposal > (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html) is > almost over, I will like to ask for the latest inputs in > order to further decide how to proceed. > > Filiz arranged some stats about the discussion (thanks a lot > for that !) last July, and afterwards, even if the discussion > period has been extended, I don't recall having seen new comments. > > The stats don't include my own postings: > > >>> - there were 39 posts from 14 different individuals about it. > >>> > >>> - 8 people supported it. > >>> > >>> - 1 person *seemed* to be in favour of keeping the current policy. > >>> > >>> - 5 people made comments which I could not identify a > clear support > >>> or objection. > > So someone else will like to say anything new or clarify > their view in favor or opposition to the proposal ? > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > > > > ********************************************** > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! > http://www.ipv6day.org > > This electronic message contains information which may be > privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be > for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not > the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, > distribution or use of the contents of this information, > including attached files, is prohibited. > > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 – Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]