[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)

On 1/11/12 3:42 PM, Martin Stanislav wrote:
>> I think the price difference in LIR membership will probably make them
>> think - more resources, bigger LIR ;)
>
> That's something for a requester to think about.

Hi,

Exactly. It's up to how we define charging schema, but basically, yes, 
you are right.

>
> The minimal change Nick talks about above and tracking the reason
> of usage is also of possible interest to the rest of the community.
> Well it rather seems like a minority of it so far.
>
> The proposed policy change reads like this:
>   No questions asked if the requested IPv6 address space size (to be)
>   allocated to a LIR is>=/32&&  <=/29 whatever the intended usage reason is,
>   e.g. the LIR's customer base size, a need for a transition technology.
> Have I missed anything ?

No. That's correct understanding. :)

Cheers, Jan