Anno domini 2016 David Croft scripsit: > Strong support in principle. We have been denied IPv6 temporary > assignments due to the NCC's interpretation that a single DHCP lease > on wifi is a "subassignment" to another entity, which was clearly not > the intention.
Thanks for the support. > I note that the "New policy text" does not specify the replacement > text for the "Contractual Requirements" That doesn't seem neccessary as the point in question - the definiton of a sub-assignment - is specified in the new version of ripe-655. What are you missing? Best Max -- <@Placebox> Gibts eigentlich IRGENDWAS im IT-Bereich, was nicht a priori komplett scheiße ist? <@Zugschlus> all software sucks
