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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): Fwd: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Thu Sep 4 10:43:03 CEST 2008
Hi, On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 11:05:36PM +0200, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > But yes, people expect different things of 2007-01, as with every > policy. This is what I'm personally expecting/hoping. But I could not > tell whether I'm voicing the single dissenting opinion or people > actually agree with my arguments. Actually I'd like to hear a few more voices regarding this latest version of 2007-01 (v4). We have deliberatly set a fairly short discussion phase to be able to get it *done*, finally, before Dubai, so please voice your opinions now. *Especially* if you have voiced your support for v3 before (or your worries about it), a few lines about v4 would be helpful. Is this properly addressing your concerns? Can you live with the result? Regarding David Monosov's concerns: this proposal has been discussed extensively on three (3) RIPE meetings now, and on the mailing list, so I think all the potential problems it brings have been discussed, and since the APWG mailing list is open to everybody (not only LIRs), everyone affected had a chance to comment on it. If you agree with the general direction, and just have worries about the wording of the "counter arguments" section in the formal proposal, I would tend to *not* do another round (to version 5) of this - the "counter arguments" section is basically there to take acknowledge some of the problematic spots, but it's not really affecting the actual implementation. So this would just delay things further, without real change. (If you think that the whole proposal is very bad, and you disagree with the general intention, by all means say so, of course!) Regarding IPv6 PI: in the discussion regarding this, the mandate was clear: 'we want/need IPv6 PI, but only in a controlled manner, and contracts + recurring fee seem to be the only way to tackle this'. We will restart the discussion on the IPv6 PI proposal as soon as 2007-01 is done (one way or the other). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): Fwd: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]