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] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Thu Apr 27 13:56:06 CEST 2006
Hi,
(removing ppml and global-v6, taking this to the address policy wg list)
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:56:27AM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
> I don't see why the discussion is dragging out for so long. This isn't
> rocket science. Let's just nail the policy down, and move on with
> more productive work.
As soon as anyone can come up with a policy draft that we all can
*agree* upon, then we can go ahead.
What I'm not seeing in your mail is a specific proposal on the rules
that should be used in deciding "who will get an address block / routing
table slot, and who will not" - and that's the main question here, no
matter how the resulting address bits are called.
Gert Doering
-- RIPE APWG co-chair
--
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 92315
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]