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] [Ext] Re: proposal to remove IPv6 PI
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ext] Re: proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Thu May 17 02:17:43 CEST 2018
Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: [...] > I think it would actually simplify a lot of those issues. > It doesn't remove the RIR->LIR->End User hierarchy > but it removes the requirement that a LIR provide > connectivity to an End User. Since when has this been a requirement? Section 2.4 of ripe-699 defines LIRs and describes them as "primarily" providing addresses for network services that they provide. Have I misunderstood the policy, or is there currently a requirement that LIR provide network connectivity to the users of the addresses they assign or sub-allocate? Kind regards, Leo Vegoda -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3739 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20180517/3a762e79/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ext] Re: proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]