On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 09:14:47AM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
On 1/26/11 8:28 AM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
We have not received any input so far whether you support draft policy 2010-06. Perhaps it's a good idea to at least mention the title of the policy
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 09:40:54PM -0800, David Kessens wrote: proposal in the "last call" announcements so that folks can quickly check wether they might have an opinion to voice or not. Agree.
On the other hand, it took me 20 seconds to find it.
For everyone reference and help (saving 20 seconds): http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-06.html
Under 3.0 section there is: "When needed, more specific inet6num objects are allowed to indicate a different assignment size within a certain range however only one level of more specifics is allowed." However rules put into 4.0 section allows to create multiple levels of inet6num objects with AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status. Is it ok? Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl