On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Gert Doering wrote: <snip>
The reason for extending the discussion period is *specifically* to see what will happen in the IETF, and then decide how to go ahead with this proposal. If the IETF goes for "yes, ULA-C is a good thing", then we can adapt this proposal accordingly - if they go for "ULA-C is not going to happen! never ever!" Jordi can withdraw the proposal, and it will be history.
The point is that what are being discussed are quite different from what the current probposal ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html ) says. It is probably that both the name, size and usage will probably be different. It is in short a quite different scenario. It will probably also outline a different assignment regime from the ULA-block too. -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID roger@jorgensen.no | - IPv6 is The Key! -------------------------------------------------------