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] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Wed Apr 15 11:12:13 CEST 2009
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:54:38AM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote: > I'm sorry but that goes back to my previous e-mail - a request for an AS is > a request for an AS and I don't see how that should be related in any way to So, as I understand, are you going to say, that RIPE NCC is assigning more than one/few ASNs to the same unique LIR just "for free"? If not (I hope so ;-) ), why we couldn't base new policy (IPv6 allocations) on other solid policy and practice (ASN assignments)? It's like in math - you must (or at least should ;-) ) base one thing on another. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]