Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

Anno domini 2016 David Croft scripsit:

Strong support in principle. We have been denied IPv6 temporary assignments due to the NCC's interpretation that a single DHCP lease on wifi is a "subassignment" to another entity, which was clearly not the intention.

Thanks for the support.

I note that the "New policy text" does not specify the replacement text for the "Contractual Requirements"

That doesn't seem neccessary as the point in question - the definiton of a sub-assignment - is specified in the new version of ripe-655. What are you missing? Best Max -- <@Placebox> Gibts eigentlich IRGENDWAS im IT-Bereich, was nicht a priori komplett scheiße ist? <@Zugschlus> all software sucks