+1 from me on this<div><br></div><div>I think that at ripe72 someone gave an example with a situation where this would be a problem and the policy would solve it.</div><div><br></div><div>That&#39;s what we need. Clearly identify a real problem<span></span> and propose a policy to fix it. Great job !</div><div><br></div><div>Ciprian<br><br>On Friday, October 21, 2016, Marco Schmidt &lt;<a href="mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net">mschmidt@ripe.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear colleagues,<br>
<br>
A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-04, &quot;IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification&quot;<br>
is now available for discussion.<br>
<br>
The goal of this proposal is to define sub-assignments in IPv6 PI assignments as subnets of /64 and shorter.<br>
<br>
You can find the full proposal at:<br>
<br>
    <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/<wbr>participate/policies/<wbr>proposals/2016-04</a><br>
<br>
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to<br>
&lt;<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;address-policy-wg@ripe.net&#39;)">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a>&gt; before 21 November 2016.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Marco Schmidt<br>
Policy Development Officer<br>
RIPE NCC<br>
<br>
Sent via RIPE Forum -- <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/<wbr>participate/mail/forum</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>