[address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

Seconded....

Good to see a refreshing 'short and to the point' suggestion. After all
that has been said over the past months, I guess we need something that
will work, rather than be worked-around !


Mark


> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net 
> [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jeroen Massar
> Sent: 26 June 2007 20:01
> To: Gert Doering
> Cc: Leo Vegoda; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for 
> Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
> 
> Gert Doering wrote:
> [..]
> > I think it would make sense, to have "full-weight" LIRs 
> that automatically
> > get a /32-or-bigger allocation, and possibly "light-weight" 
> RIPE "customers"
> > (to get the contractual stuff that is desired) that get a 
> /48-or-so PI.
> > 
> > Just as a rough outline - details to be worked out.
> 
> The outline sounds good to me, you have my support (though of course
> show details first ;).
> 
> And it is *MUCH* better than the current proposals which are simply
> going to waste address space.
> 
> It is then also very simple "become member, pay fees, justify space
> requirement, get it, done presto"
> 
> Also that avoids any need for ULA-C as everybody is covered.
> Now if only the rest of the RIR community was able to 
> understand that point.
> 
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
> 
>