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] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sergey Myasoedov
sergey at devnull.ru
Tue Oct 20 17:02:20 CEST 2015
That's not fair, but I would not object :) Tuesday, October 20, 2015, 4:56:20 PM, you wrote: AB> I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on AB> current resource number and age of the LIR. AB> E.g. AB> LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent AB> Or AB> First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - /20 etc. -- Sergey
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]