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 New Policy Proposal (Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 New Policy Proposal (Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 New Policy Proposal (Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Wed Oct 4 17:35:09 CEST 2006
Sascha Lenz wrote: [...] > For (standard) IPv6 assignments, you don't even have to ask RIPE in most > cases by default. [...] Which makes me remember again that I added the following comment to similar discussions in the past: "I don't believe that the /`whatever` is a useful yardstick to reasonably measure the complexity, difficulty or quality of request assessment for an assignment." My only problem is that I don't know which conclusion to draw from this, regarding the AW... Wilfried.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 New Policy Proposal (Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 New Policy Proposal (Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]