[address-policy-wg] Concerns on policy proposal 2005-08

Hi Leo,

Yes, good point, that's the idea.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
> Responder a: <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
> Fecha: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:01:30 +0100
> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> CC: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] Concerns on policy proposal 2005-08
> 
> Jordi,
> 
> On Jan 25, 2007, at 4:41 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> 5.4.1. I think is a mistake to change the existing text, but if we
>> decide to
>> go for it, I will never suggest a minimum value of /64. End-users
>> need to
>> have at least a prefix that allow to have several subnets. My view
>> is still
>> that /48 is the right size, but definitively I will accept in the
>> *worst*
>> case something such as /56, but never /64 should be suggested as a
>> minimum
>> value. I think if we go into this direction, definitively there is
>> a need to
>> clearly state that the end-users have the right to request extra
>> size if
>> needed, without any additional justification,
> 
> When you say that end users should have the right to "request" extra
> space if needed "without any additional justification", do you
> actually mean that end users should have the right to *receive* extra
> space without any additional justification?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- 
> Leo Vegoda
> IANA Numbers Liaison
> 
> 




**********************************************
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.