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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Policies and Guidelines for Assignments for Network Infrastructure and End User Networks
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policies and Guidelines for Assignments for Network Infrastructure and End User Networks
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policies and Guidelines for Assignments for Network Infrastructure and End User Networks
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Mon Nov 5 11:50:26 CET 2018
Töma Gavrichenkov wrote on 05/11/2018 10:36: > But when we try to rely on6.2 for a definitive advice, we don't get any: The general practice is to treat /30-/32 as LIR infrastructure assignments, i.e. not register them. /29s are borderline - there are cases where a /29 could be considered as a point-to-point link, e.g. single customer address + VRRP config on routers. Ambiguity allows common sense to be used. There is a bigger issue of whether personal information should be exposed in public whois for any resource registration. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policies and Guidelines for Assignments for Network Infrastructure and End User Networks
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policies and Guidelines for Assignments for Network Infrastructure and End User Networks
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]