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] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Fri Dec 15 00:09:12 CET 2006
Hi, On 14 Dec 2006, at 17:23, Sascha Lenz wrote: > Andy Davidson schrieb: >> On 13 Dec 2006, at 16:16, Leo Vegoda wrote: >>> Several people raised concerns that new LIRs may not have >>> sufficient experience to make good decisions with a /21 AW. >> To appease those worriers, the policy could say that the AW growth >> from 0 to /21 is only permitted if the LIR has at least one admin- >> c who has been to RIPE LIR training ? > hm, i don't really see why making the policy more complex is helping. > My point from my former post(s) keep standing... just pass the > proposal so we can focus on the other more important ones :-) Just an incentive to encourage people to at least learn how to assign 'properly'.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]