Hello, I agree to 2016-05 ! Why having 2 different policies for the same thing? - Two policies cause overhead and double effort. - Different policies punish early birds in ipv6 deployment. So let us synchronise the policies. Best regards! Frank lir de.government sub lir Niedersachsen
Hello all, I am in favour of the proposal 2016-05. In my opinion it makes sense to align and harmonize the policies for initial and subsequent IPv6 allocations and I believe that this policy proposal will achieve such a harmonization. All the best Sascha Knabe Bundesverwaltungsamt Local Internet Registry de.government
Dear WG, Apologies for my belated follow-up; I agree with Sascha's position below so that's a +1 from me. Regards, Mathew
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of LIR (VM II 9) Sent: 06 February 2017 14:24 To: 'address-policy-wg@ripe.net' <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 I agree
Hello all,
I am in favour of the proposal 2016-05. In my opinion it makes sense to align and harmonize the policies for initial and subsequent IPv6 allocations and I believe that this policy proposal will achieve such a harmonization.
All the best Sascha Knabe
Bundesverwaltungsamt Local Internet Registry de.government
participants (3)
-
Frank Meyer -
LIR (VM II 9) -
Newton, Mathew C1 (ISS Des-Arch33-Arch)