+1 // Andreas Andreas Larsen AS12552 IP-Only Telecommunication AB| Postadress: 753 81 UPPSALA | Besöksadress: S:t Persgatan 6, Uppsala | Telefon: +46 (0)18 843 10 00 | Direkt: +46 (0)18 843 10 56 www.ip-only.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] För Marco Hogewoning Skickat: den 10 september 2010 09:44 Till: ipv6-wg Ämne: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments) On Sep 8, 2010, at 10:20 PM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
On 8 sep 2010, at 15:49, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
Thus wrote Denis Walker (denis@ripe.net):
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
On Sep 6, 2010, at 4:06 PM, <kpn-ip-office@kpn.com> <kpn-ip-office@kpn.com> wrote:
I have some questions about the proposal Question 1: Why was chosen for "SUB-ASSIGNED PA" and not for "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" or even "LIR-PARTITIONED PA", [...]
[...]
One is to aggregate many individual customers into an assignment block.
It's a rather bikeshedding issue, but maybe pick AGGREGATED PA? LIR-PARTITIONED PA would also be easily understandable, but is a mouthful. :)
I was about to come with the same suggestion. As said, the current one basically is just a placeholder as we needed something in the revision 1 document.
'AGGREGATED XX' is pretty much unique and clearly describes the whole purpose.
How do people feel about AGGREGATED-BY-LIR ? Stays in line with the current ones and describes the purpose. Grtx Marco