[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:20:34AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Ok, here is it then. Hopefully we have a lot of fun and good noise ;-) (that's music?)

Thanks.

So, basically, we have two possible approaches here:

proposed by Max (active proposal): 
  keep the IPv6 PI policy as somewhat restrictive, trying to find wording 
  that permits "some generally accepted" use-cases where other people's 
  devices can get numbers from someone's IPv6 PI block

or, 

proposed by Jordi (new direction):
  completely remove the restrictions on "letting other people use parts 
  of someone's IPv6 PI block"


both would work to solve the (real) problem at hand, and Jordi's approach
would certainly much easier than trying to come up with unambiguous wording
to "permit some, disallow other" use cases.

Thanks for your proposal, and now let's see what the community wants :-)

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20171108/20dea53c/attachment.sig>