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/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/

[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)

• Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
• Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

S.P.Zeidler spz at serpens.de
Wed Sep 8 15:49:57 CEST 2010

Thus wrote Denis Walker (denis at ripe.net):

> Marco Hogewoning wrote:
> > On Sep 6, 2010, at 4:06 PM, <kpn-ip-office at kpn.com> <kpn-ip-office at kpn.com> wrote:
> >> I have some questions about the proposal
> >> Question 1:
> >> Why was chosen for "SUB-ASSIGNED PA" and not for "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" or even "LIR-PARTITIONED PA", [...]

[...]

> One is to
> aggregate many individual customers into an assignment block.

It's a rather bikeshedding issue, but maybe pick AGGREGATED PA?
LIR-PARTITIONED PA would also be easily understandable, but is a mouthful. :)

regards,
	spz

• Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
• Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]