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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] New correct proposal (Was: 2008-01/2008-02)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New correct proposal (Was: 2008-01/2008-02)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Garry Glendown
garry at nethinks.com
Wed Jan 16 15:33:59 CET 2008
Stream Service || Mark Scholten wrote: > A PI assignments via LIR's should be possible (make both options possible?) > if you ask me and also the costs will go via the LIR in that case. > ... for which you'd have to have some kind of provision to transfer the billing partner in case the user switches LIRs ... or gets a new provider that isn't a RIPE LIR ... > A holder off PI space should be allowed to offer PA space to clients (but no > special routing for the clients!). So it is only different in the RIPE NCC > whois database and not in the routing table. > What do you mean here? Assign subnets out of a PI to customers? Why should RIPE even bother getting involved? -garry
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New correct proposal (Was: 2008-01/2008-02)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]