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] 2016-03: trading the last /22?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Mon Jun 20 11:23:12 CEST 2016
> On 20 Jun 2016, at 10:16, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > > - do we want to restrict trading of "last /8 policy" /22s, yes or no? > ... > But do not complain about the potential consequences, please just answer > the question. No. Maybe. Depends. If we do tweak the current policy, there’s one consequence that has to be considered though: the integrity and accuracy of the RIPE database. PS: Apologies for starting a new thread with a meaningful and relevant Subject: header.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]