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] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Fri Jul 17 15:27:25 CEST 2009
Sascha Lenz wrote: [...] > I would support a more "floating" (first) allocation policy, because > even that i think that we don't need to conserve IPv4 space too much, i > also don't think that we need to waste it either if there are other > simple options like what you suggest (smaller Allocation on request or so). While it may be an intersting idea in light of conservation, there's a good operational reason why all the LIR Allocations are of equal (minimum) size: filtering on prefix length. :-) Wilfried.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]