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] late conciliatory response to 2014-03
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] late conciliatory response to 2014-03
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] late conciliatory response to 2014-03
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Tue Jan 20 07:51:13 CET 2015
* Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> > As a working group we need to decide a few things: > - do we want to make it easy to get ASNs? (the answer seems to be "yes") Yep. I'm not opposed to saying that the applicant must have *some* form of technical need for it. Multihoming would be one valid requirement, but it shouldn't be the only qualifying technical need. I liked the first version of the proposal... > - do we want to place a limit? I agree that it's not ideal. > - do we wait for the next RIPE NCC charging scheme to see if that > solves our problems? Do we have any idea if the board will propose an ASN charge at the Spring GM? (Hi Nigel!) I think waiting would make sense if we know that an ASN charge is in the works. Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] late conciliatory response to 2014-03
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] late conciliatory response to 2014-03
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]