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] 2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
michael.dillon at bt.com
michael.dillon at bt.com
Wed Oct 15 17:42:56 CEST 2008
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-06.html I wonder why this policy doesn't require the LIRs to have an IPv6 allocation before they apply for one of the last few IPv4 blocks? Is there any good reason to give out one of the last IPv4 blocks to an LIR which has no intention of deploying IPv6? In other words, if the policy is intended to only provide enough IPv4 resources to ease the transition, shouldn't the policy also require that the LIR has taken the basic step of getting an IPv6 allocation? It would also be nice if the policy had a clearer statement about this being a quota or rationing system. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]