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] 2006-05 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 ]
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Wed Sep 20 12:51:45 CEST 2006
> Invalid conclusion. *We* are RIPE. *You* are part of RIPE. > > So of course the RIPE policies can consider routing table impact. RIPE represents network operators from one of the 5 regions of the world which share the global routing table. How can RIPE reasonably deal with such a global issue unilaterally? Currently, the interdomain routing system requires a flat non-hierarchical architecture for the global routing table. Unless RIPE introduces some sort of routing model which involves a European routing table that carries more detail than the global routing table, then RIPE should not accept any responsibility at all for the use of global routing table slots. The decisions about the use of routing table slots are not made within RIPE. They are private decisions of private organizations outside of the RIPE terms of reference. --Michael Dillon
- 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 ]