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: 2010-06 is going to Last Call

• Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call
• Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call

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

Kostas Zorbadelos kzorba at otenet.gr
Thu Jan 27 10:38:46 CET 2011

On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 09:36:55 pm Daniel Roesen wrote:

<snip>
...
> I oppose on grounds of paragraph 2 of "Arguments Opposing the Proposal".
> 
> The only one who needs the assignment size is RIPE NCC when evaluating
> new allocation requests or in audit.
...
</snip>

I am sure that RIPE NCC is not the only interested party for the publication 
of an assignment-size attribute. I think the advantages clearly outweigh the 
disadvantages here.

I support this proposal.

Regards,

Kostas 

• Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call
• Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call

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

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]