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] 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 ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Wed Dec 20 20:11:40 CET 2006
Hi Dmitry, On Dec 19, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Dmitry Kiselev wrote: [...] > In my opinion AW can be auto-rised to almost match most "popular" > assignments sizes. All further risings(lowers) can be done upon LIR > request. If stats does not show clear peak - AW size can be aligned > to nearest bigest value. I am not sure I understand what you are proposing. Are you suggesting that all assignment approvals should trigger an AW raise? That is, if my LIR has an AW of /23 and I receive approval to make a /22 assignment I should automatically have my AW set at /22. Thanks, -- Leo Vegoda IANA Numbers Liaison
- 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 ]