some are still at the beach :)On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
On 25/08/2014 19:47, Gert Doering wrote:
> while I can understand that beaches and drinks are more attractive than
> policy work, we have a proposal here that needs a bit of caring -
> this one is in Review Phase until Friday, and has received exactly one
> comment yet (strong support). I could use a *bit* more feedback here...
Whoops, sorry about that!
Beach-and-drink time was over a month ago!
I would go as far as to say, as long as you have/use IPv6 (no matter which color and from whom) you can request the last /22. I would also accept a change proposal that would completely remove this requirement and believe it's even a better idea.tl;dr: don't support as-is, but could be convinced
--
I support the idea as it's a bugfix policy proposal, but the wording is
need to be improved. At the moment, it ties the policy to the idea of the
RIPE NCC being the routing police. Probably this isn't the intention.
I think you're right about that.
+1
It may be better to consider alternative wording, e.g.
> An allocation will only be made to a LIR if the LIR has already been
> assigned or allocated an IPv6 address block from a RIR.
Even better, remove the requirement completely as it's pointless.
I'm not convinced that it's a pointless requirement, but I concur that the wording needs to be changed a bit before I feel comfortable with it.
As it is, however, I don't feel strongly either way about this part of the policy, but a clearer policy is something I'll support. :)--
Jan
Elvis Daniel VeleaChief Business Analyst Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net |
|
|
Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: |
|
| |
|
|
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited. |
|