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] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
niels=apwg at bakker.net
niels=apwg at bakker.net
Thu Sep 17 19:38:06 CEST 2009
>> Agree for as long as there are addresses enough to meet the applicants >> needs. Yet it is IMHO pointless to hand out micro-blocks as a sorry >> response to a PA-request for a substantially larger block. * michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) [Thu 17 Sep 2009, 17:13 CEST]: >In particular, what if the applicant's competitor just received a much >larger allocation two weeks earlier? Same thing that happens when the person in front of you in the line at the cafetaria at work takes that last cupcake: you're outta luck. This is also why nobody has proposed to go back and yank valid assignments, no matter if they are two weeks or two decades old. -- Niels.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]