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] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[email protected]
remco.vanmook at gmail.com
Tue May 17 17:27:07 CEST 2016
It means it's not allocated PI, in line with the other definitions in chapter 7. Remco Sent from my HTC ----- Reply message ----- From: "Aleksey Bulgakov" <aleksbulgakov at gmail.com> To: "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> Cc: "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt at ripe.net>, "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy) Date: Tue, May 17, 2016 17:03 ALLOCATED FINAL: This address space has been allocated to an LIR and no assignments made from it are portable. What does it mean "are portable"? 2016-05-17 16:38 GMT+03:00 Gert Doering <gert at space.net>: > Hi, > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 02:01:17PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> I'd politely like to ask the chairs to do two things: >> >> 1. declare their opinion on whether 2015-05 reached consensus > > Right now, we have no consensus to move forward. We're currently > discussing with the proposers what to do next - extend the discussion > phase (to formally include the RIPE72 AP WG meeting), or withdraw. > >> 2. use the bunfight which is inevitably going to happen in Copenhagen to >> allow them to exercise more restraint about what sort of proposals hit >> the mailing list in future so that we don't spend years wasting time >> squabbling about the dregs sitting at the bottom of the ipv4 allocation >> barrel. > > I'm hearing you, and we think this discussion is indeed necessary (to be > held on wednesday about 09:30-10:30) to see whether there is general WG > consensus to move towards a more liberal (2015-05-ish), strict (2016-03-ish), > or "leave it as it is!" last /8 policy. And then, decide what to do with > upcoming policy proposals. > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -- ---------- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160517/8d60975d/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]