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] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Mon Sep 17 12:25:35 CEST 2012
On 17/09/2012 10:47, Gert Doering wrote: > ... I'm not sure if "every time the available pool for X is empty, just > grab another slice of the rest and declare it to be 'available for X, but > limited!!'" is a reasonable strategy... +1 To be clear, as proposer of this policy, I'm interested in a long term solution for PI so that we have long term policy clarity for PI assignment in the RIPE service region. I'm not interested in a series of stop-gap measures. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]