[ppml] Version think... was: alternative to 2005-1
sleibrand at internap.com
Mon Feb 13 10:44:31 EST 2006
What do you think is bad about the current revision of 2005-1? Do you
prefer Andrew's /19 threshold? Or do you have broader objections?
On 02/13/06 at 10:39am -0500, Glenn Wiltse <iggy at merit.edu> wrote:
> As much as I'd like to join you guys in suggesting that
> we just pass something no matter how bad it is... I can't.
> Glenn Wiltse
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> > On 02/13/06 at 3:18pm -0000, Paul Vixie <paul at vix.com> wrote:
> >> and that the only real effect of 2005-1 will be to end the complaints
> >> about how broken IPv6 is and how PI space is needed. but, let's find
> >> out!
> > Yes, let's. I really think we should pass some sort of IPv6 PI policy at
> > Montreal. If limiting the number of PI allocations allowed under the
> > policy makes that possible by making the policy more palatable to a wider
> > audience, I'm all for it. I just want to make sure that we don't set the
> > limit too low.
> > -Scott
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML mailing list
> > PPML at arin.net
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> > !DSPAM:43f0a524244761125017983!
More information about the ARIN-PPML