address-policy-wg

Download

address-policy-wg@ripe.net

January 2013

16 participants
11 discussions

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 16, Issue 16
by Iftikhar Ahmad Mehar 02 Jan '13

02 Jan '13

Hi RIPE, Yes it does make sense that's why I vote in support of this proposal. Regards, Mehar Iftikhar Ahmad > From: address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > Subject: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 16, Issue 16 > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 12:00:02 +0100 > > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on > a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) (Emilio Madaio) > 2. Re: [policy-announce] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension > of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) > (Richard Hartmann) > 3. Re: 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6/32 to /29 > on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) (Jamie Stallwood) > 4. Re: 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 > on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) (Erik Bais) > 5. Re: [policy-announce] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension > of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) > (Julian Seifert) > 6. Re: 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 > on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) (David Freedman) > 7. Re: 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 > on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) (James Blessing) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:12:50 +0100 > From: "Emilio Madaio" <emadaio(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of > IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) > To: policy-announce(a)ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <E1TpcMU-0000QD-FA(a)puppy.ripe.net> > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 January 2013. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:22:43 +0100 > From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-10 New Policy > Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR > basis) > To: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: > <CAD77+gSeLow2QyaVDNnCcBmmkxw2-CA9ebxac69TopbepLnCww(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Support. > > Anything else would be unfair and relatively easy to work around. > > > -- > Richard >

1 0