[address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification

Hi,

thanks, Jordi, to get the ball rolling again on this.

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 01:12:36PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> So my questions are:
> 1) Do we agree that only dynamic should be allowed, or static is also ok?
> 2) According to 1 above, should the DataCenter case be alllowed?

These are indeed the questions we need to have at least some semblance of
agremeent upon before we can try to make policy text out of it.

While I do have an opinion, I'm not going to voice it now :-) - so, folks,
what do *you* think?

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
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/20190117/8e0532a0/attachment.sig>