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] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Conrad
david.conrad at icann.org
Tue Sep 19 17:56:20 CEST 2006
> (I believe, it is *only* real target for those who speaks > againist PI - to simplify competition for themselves) Um. No. It is also people who have experienced the "joys" of watching routers falls over (and the subsequent cascading failures) because of too much routing information and who wish to avoid similar happy experiences in the future. Simply, PI to network topological leaves doesn't scale. Rgds, -drc "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]