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 Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Wed Feb 14 19:17:51 CET 2007
You are right, thanks for spotting it! It should have read "...receiving PA is not raised to /24, too... Wilfried. Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 05:41:39PM +0000, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > >>- on a more general note, as long as the minimum assignemt size for customers >>receiving PA is raised to /24, too, this proposal is a real incentive to go >>for PI instead of PA. > > > A "not" is missing somewhere in this sentence, but I think the intended > meaning is clear :) > > (not commenting on the policy proposal itself) > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]