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 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck
lists-ripe at c4inet.net
Thu May 15 12:13:20 CEST 2014
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:08:14AM +0100, Mailing List Account wrote: >One question though, if the minimum (sub-)/allocation size is >now /24, is the part regarding classless reverse delegation in >the impact statement now obsolete? Never mind, that is in the current policy text. Oh, for proper diffs. rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]