This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Mon Jan 12 22:17:39 CET 2004
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:47:27PM +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > --On 12. januar 2004 10:23 +0100 Daniel Karrenberg > <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote: > > This discussion is *not* about address policy, > > it really is about ** routing policy! ** > > This is actually a very good point, I personally support this view. So we should discuss things in routing-wg, and if we come to the conclusion that we like to see some special IP block to make "special" anycast assignments from, come back to address-policy-wg, right? Regards, Daniel
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]