Hi, On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:01:12PM +0100, boggits wrote:
On 21 October 2011 11:44, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04
Okay, I can see the logic, but please can we not do this :)
I'm all for allowing a policy that says LIR can request a /29 rather than a /32 and that deploying 6rd is a valid reason for allocating a /29 as an initial block but can we do this by having the LIR send the documentation in and having it reviewed for logic.
The feedback we got at the last RIPE meeting was "please do not tie this to a specific transition technology, and go down the rathole of potentially having to revoke the allocation if 6rd is no longer in use". So the proposers have decided to go for the "minimum fuzz" thing - ask for it, get it. I'm not exactly sure how you're proposing to modify this? "Special case for 6rd only"? Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279