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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD rati o policy proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD rati o policy proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD ratio policy proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
McTim
dogwallah at gmail.com
Sun Jul 10 15:40:55 CEST 2005
Hi Hans, I agree with karsten, and do NOT support this policy change. Why: Conservation of v4 space is a greater priority for me than potentially easing V. large registries adminstrative overhead. In fact, I have never been convinced about this being a "problem" in the first place. In terms of hierarchy, as long as your v4 sub-allocation or assignment is in the RIPE Db, it is considered in use and counts as part of the 80%. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD rati o policy proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD ratio policy proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]