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 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Tue May 17 15:52:21 CEST 2016
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 02:46:02PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote: >It doesn't apply retroactively - so if you have already merged >LIRs and are currently holding multiple /22s form the final /8 >you're fine. It does stop future cases though. So it puts new entrants at a competitive disadvantage to existing LIRs? I'm sure that will look just *great* in court. rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]