[address-policy-wg] Re: 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I cannot personally see any problems with this, since the holder of
the block should (must?) advertise it as a single aggregate, the
routing tables should not grow dependent on if the provider makes 1 or
65000 IPv6 assignments

Mike.

Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I have asked Filiz to extend the discussion period for this proposal,
> because there have been *no* comments in the last round - but the proposal
> itself was changed, and as such, I can't just declare "consensus" or
> "no consensus" here.
>
> Please give us your input on whether you think the proposal *as written
> right now* is a good thing to have.
>
> regards,
>
> Gert Doering,
>     Address Policy WG Chair
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 07:02:32AM +0100, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
>> PDP Number: 2006-02
>> IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy
>>
>> Dear Colleagues
>>
>> The Discussion Period for the proposal 2006-06 has been extended
>> until until 19 March 2007.
>>
>> This proposal is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria and
>> the End Site definition in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and
>> Assignment Policy".
>>
>> You can find the full proposal at:
>>
>>     http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html
>>
>> We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments
>> to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Filiz Yilmaz
>> RIPE NCC
>> Policy Development Officer
>>
>
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFF4qirxUvvuPE3k4oRAuSTAJ9h7Jx5/hM+T+fswHqQTJlVMXoJRgCdHqWC
M2YrsdRI6eL9rSH4HoBoUWI=
=HM9j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----