Dear Jordi, Thank you for your question.
On 2018-01-15 11:21:10 CET, Jordi Palet Martinez wrote: > Furthermore, I will like a clarification from NCC about what I mention in the > mike, I think is this comment: > > One of the opposing remark was that this would prevent "unique prefix > per host" style allocations, but that was addressed by Marco at the > APWG meeting already - the RS interpretation is "this would work". > My comment during the Address Policy WG session at RIPE 75 was referring to configuration mechanisms where a /64 is needed per customer to provide a separate address, for instance by using dedicated (V)LANs to connect WiFi customers. Such mechanisms will be considered in line with the policy. Section A of the impact analysis provides more details on our understanding for these cases. https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 I hope this clarifies. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
