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] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments): discussion in the IPv6-WG mailing list
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments): discussion in the IPv6-WG mailing list
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Fri Sep 3 17:34:35 CEST 2010
On 03/09/2010 16:30, Sander Steffann wrote: > Allowing multiple "assignment-size:" fields might solve that. perhaps. But the beauty of only allowing a single size is that the RIPE NCC can multiply the number of assignments by the value of the assignment-size: field to find out the H/D ratio. I'm not trying to argue out both sides of my mouth here, btw. I'm just trying to understand what the intention of the proposal is, and whether the proposal needs to be clearer in this regard. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments): discussion in the IPv6-WG mailing list
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]