[address-policy-wg] 2009-08

Because of point 2 I don't support this proposal, if/when this point is
removed I support this proposal. 

 

Some people don't want that RIPE is saying anything about routing policy, so
it should also not look for this for returning IPv6/IPv4 IP assignments if
you ask me. 

 

From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of David Freedman
Sent: maandag 8 juni 2009 22:05
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08

 

Can I just ask for clarification of the following:

"the LIR must demonstrate the unique routing requirements for the PI
assignment."
and
"The LIR must return the IPv6 PI assignment within a period of six months
should the unique routing requirements for the PI assignment no longer be
met."

1. does this mean that the following question from RIPE-468 is no longer
valid for routing?

"% Is the End User requesting extra address space for routing and/or
% administrative reasons? (Yes/No)"


2. Will this include the space not being routed at all? or does this require
that the space be routed?


Regards,

Dave.

------------------------------------------------
David Freedman
Group Network Engineering
Claranet Limited
http://www.clara.net



-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net on behalf of Frederic
Sent: Mon 6/8/2009 20:07
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08

hi,

we support this proposal.

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-08.html



bst regards.
Frederic




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090609/c4908586/attachment.html>