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] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck
lists-ripe at c4inet.net
Fri Mar 28 20:22:59 CET 2014
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 07:58:44PM +0100, Janos Zsako wrote: >I think there is a misunderstanding here. >This policy (2014-01) does not change the rest of the text of 5.1. >It still says: >1. The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /22. You're right, it does. My bad. That actually removes the main reason to be unhappy with the proposal; the reverse DNS issue is not strong enough to sustain an objection on. Thanks for clarifying this, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]