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] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Chris
chrish at consol.net
Thu Jan 19 14:16:06 CET 2012
Hi! On 01/19/2012 02:11 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> But as i already wrote: dividing into groups and handling them unequally >> is _definitely_ an increase in unfairness. > > So, one person or company, one IP address? If that's what you want to give to anybody, that should be what you give to IXPs/ISPs. (You probably won't find anybody else supporting this...) Regards, Chris
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]