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] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Mon Jun 3 19:53:13 CEST 2019
Dear Wolfgang, all -- On 31/05/2019, 08:47, Wolfgang Tremmel <wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net> wrote: > when an IXP first applies for an allocation out of the pool it has zero customers. I have applied for, or supported a number of assignments in a number of different registries on a number of occasions. One of the very few things that they all had in common is customers. It was always necessary to demonstrate to the registry that the IXP has demand and will support connections right away. This is a healthy qualification that a prospective IXP should have to demonstrate. That said we do agree that IXPs should by default receive the /24. Andy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]