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] Discussion phase .. 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Mon Sep 14 16:39:14 CEST 2015
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 03:49:24PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: >On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 15:09, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > >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). I know that it's not likely we could come up with something that is 100% reliable. I was thinking along the lines of a statement in the allocation request like: "We have deployed IPv6 to our customers and we are using $technology to do it." combined with a mini-audit focusing on ipv6 assignments. I know this could be gamed but it may serve as a gentle nudge in the direction of at least making *some* effort towards ipv6 deployment. rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discussion phase .. 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]