Hi all, I still support the proposal. As mentioned in previous posts and being also considered in the RIPE impact analysis this seems to be a useful harmonization of policies dealing with (nearly) the same situation for LIRs.
Regards Martin -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 2:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Revert initial changes to the HD-ratio calculation - Clarification as to when the new need justifies a subsequent allocation - Clarification as to what the subsequent allocation size will be based on You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <[email protected]> before 22 February 2017. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
