Anno domini 2017 Marco Schmidt scripsit: Hi Marco,
Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification" is now in the Review Phase.
Cool, thanks for that!
The goal of this proposal is to re-define the term "sub-assignment" for IPv6.
This proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion and is now at version v2.0. Some of the differences from version v1.0 include: - the scope is extended to all IPv6 assignments - it defines that the provision of separate IPv6 addresses is not considered a sub-assignment
The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04
And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04/draft
There seem's to be some glitch in the comparison between the proposal versions. The diff seems to be in the wrong direction. Could you have a look at that? Thanks! Best Max -- "I have to admit I've always suspected that MTBWTF would be a more useful metric of real-world performance." -- Valdis Kletnieks on NANOG