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] 2011-05 New Policy Proposal (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Policy Proposal (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Policy Proposal (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Wed Oct 26 10:21:25 CEST 2011
On 26 Oct 2011, at 06:17, Martin Millnert wrote: > I do have a question for clarification: andy, you speak about "peering LAN" in singular. How is the policy to be interpreted by the IPRAs for IXPs requesting space for different-size MTU peering LANs? A luxury we can't afford after runout, or? Sounds like an edge case, but in my mind this is just a second peering LAN, so still meets the description of a peering lan for situation described in the policy. Andy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Policy Proposal (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Policy Proposal (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]