-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I cannot personally see any problems with this, since the holder of the block should (must?) advertise it as a single aggregate, the routing tables should not grow dependent on if the provider makes 1 or 65000 IPv6 assignments Mike. Gert Doering wrote:
Hi everybody,
I have asked Filiz to extend the discussion period for this proposal, because there have been *no* comments in the last round - but the proposal itself was changed, and as such, I can't just declare "consensus" or "no consensus" here.
Please give us your input on whether you think the proposal *as written right now* is a good thing to have.
regards,
Gert Doering, Address Policy WG Chair
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 07:02:32AM +0100, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
PDP Number: 2006-02 IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy
Dear Colleagues
The Discussion Period for the proposal 2006-06 has been extended until until 19 March 2007.
This proposal is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria and the End Site definition in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy".
You can find the full proposal at:
http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>.
Regards
Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFF4qirxUvvuPE3k4oRAuSTAJ9h7Jx5/hM+T+fswHqQTJlVMXoJRgCdHqWC M2YrsdRI6eL9rSH4HoBoUWI= =HM9j -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----