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] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)

• Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
• Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Sander Steffann sander at steffann.nl
Tue Feb 10 14:08:45 CET 2009

Hi Andy,
> There are significant advantages to passing "as is" with the aim of 
> getting the policy passed quickly, because I do believe there are 
> networks who are not LIRs waiting for v6 PI to be allowed in Europe.
>
> If others agree with my premise that an organisation's status with the 
> NCC should not be a barrier to v6 PI, I will propose the policy to fix.
I think this is a good way forward.

Thanks,
Sander

• Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
• Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ address-policy-wg Archives ]