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] Input request for the PI Transfer policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Input request for the PI Transfer policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Input request for the PI Transfer policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Job Snijders
job at instituut.net
Tue Mar 25 09:56:28 CET 2014
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:27:54AM +0200, Elvis Velea wrote: > Hi Erik, > > I, personally, would put the /24 limit in policy. Anything lower than a /24 > can no longer be split by the RIPE NCC and must be transferred in one block. That seems like an arbitrairy limit. What is so magic about /24? I can think of a few use-cases where globally unique ip space (and proper registration in a database) are useful, but global routability is not expected. Kind regards, Job
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Input request for the PI Transfer policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Input request for the PI Transfer policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]