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] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Thu Apr 16 16:18:34 CEST 2009
On 16 apr 2009, at 10:11, Jerzy Pawlus wrote: > I think we can modify your idea slightly. Let's assign > 10 'scoring units' for a second and subsequent /32 not fulfilling > HD-Ratio. > It will effectively move an LIR to a higher billing category. Let's not do that, as it would simply reduce the whole policy to you get as much addresses as you can afford instead of you get the addresses you need. Skipping HD-ratio in favor of scoring units is bad, very bad. Groet, MarcoH
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]