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] 2010-01 New Policy Proposal (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-01 New Policy Proposal (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-01 New Policy Proposal (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Thu Mar 18 16:15:48 CET 2010
On 18/03/2010 13:34, James Blessing wrote: > 2. I thought the differentiation between 16bit and 32bit ASN was removed There are and always will be technical differences between the two. e.g. there's no GLOP addresses for 32 bit ASNs, and there are differences in the way that ASNs are handled at a protocol level. There are fewer distinctions drawn at an assignment level, but they are not related to the technical characteristics of the numbers. > Would the goals of this proposal not be better set by creating a > collection of temporary objects under a dedicated LIR that is clearly > marked as such that are 'loaned' to organisations using them rather than > creating a new class of registrations in the RIR? That would possibly suit PA assignments, but not PI assignments. This proposal is about PI assignments. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-01 New Policy Proposal (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-01 New Policy Proposal (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]