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] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Mon Sep 14 15:49:24 CEST 2015
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 15:09, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > 1) anything that increases the bureaucracy required to deal with > the NCC for a first allocation is a non-goer. > > 2) I could live with giving a LIR which has only received an > "austerity /22" another shot after a certain time, but I'd couple > it with some proof of ipv6 deployment (beyond just advertising a > /32) If you have some ideas of how to reliably determine "real ipv6 deployment" *AND* write down that criteria in a policy-friendly way, you're welcome (want to be part of the proposal ? - ok). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]