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

Hi Nick,

Fully agree, and I’ve been working around that idea for about a year already … I’ve something in the kitchen, but still not mature enought.

I’m waiting for NCC budget figures to be able to make a proposal that is sustainable in the long term. I know “money” is not related to policies, but in this case, even if is only rational behind the proposal text, I think it is a must.

Nevertheless, my opinion is that that change may take, as you said, a longer period of discussion, and I will like to make sure, meanwhile, cases such as Max one, aren’t “in hold” for deploying IPv6.

Regards,
Jordi
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org>
Responder a: <nick at foobar.org>
Fecha: miércoles, 8 de noviembre de 2017, 12:24
Para: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

    Gert Doering wrote:
    > 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.
    
    this is a restatement of the long-standing question about whether the
    RIPE community should continue with the idea of differentiating between
    PA and PI address space.
    
    If we're going to go down this road, this is a substantial change to
    make, with far-reaching consequences, and it needs a good deal more
    attention than a couple of lines in the ipv6 policy doc.
    
    Nick
    
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.