[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)

Hello,

I still oppose this policy, however, support the "bon-volonté" of the
proposers.

It is bad to make looser the address allocation rules at the RIR level.
Address allocation rules MUST be the same for every regional Internet
registry.

It is also bad to propose "one size fit all" style rules. When Randy said
that why not to allocate a /16, he was just ironic, I am sure.

I said that "bon-volonté" of the proposers merits its support.

6RD is here, and we do not have time to fine tune it and make it more
address freindly, even if it is possible,

Therefore is is wise to create exceptional rules that could support 6RD,
however, these rules should be discussed at global level and MUST be valid
only for a limited period of time.

Best,

Géza





On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Anfinsen, Ragnar <
Ragnar.Anfinsen at altibox.no> wrote:

> +1
>
> MVH/Regards
> Ragnar Anfinsen
>
> > -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> > Fra: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-
> > bounces at ripe.net] På vegne av Emilio Madaio
> > Sendt: 4. april 2012 15:22
> > Til: policy-announce at ripe.net
> > Kopi: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> > Emne: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of
> > the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
> >
> >
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > The proposal described in 2011-04 is now at its Concluding Phase.
> >
> > You can find the full proposal at:
> >
> >     http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04
> >
> >
> > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to
> > address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 2 May 2012.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Emilio Madaio
> > Policy Development Officer
> > RIPE NCC
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20120411/8b809068/attachment.html>