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] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Fri Jan 13 10:42:38 CET 2012
On 1/12/12 5:22 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote: >> I think the price difference in LIR membership will probably make >> them think - more resources, bigger LIR ;) > > As the WG does not control the charging scheme it does not seem > sensible to rely on the charging scheme remaining the same for the > effectiveness of a policy created in the WG. Leo, hi thnx for comment. It is not a matter of "relying", as we don't control charging scheme - and charging scheme must not affect the policy itself and vice-versa. Agree fully, but currently I can not see that this affects the proposal - but we need to keep this in mind in the future. Cheers, Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]