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] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Thu Nov 14 18:46:20 CET 2019
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019, at 14:56, Nick Hilliard wrote: > As you're speaking in favour of the proposal, can you describe what > problem you want to see fixed here? Problem : adapt the default assignment to the needs of most, in order to prolong pool's life, while allowing those that need to grow to do so while minimising re-numbering at maximum. To put it other way, I'm in favour of the idea, but not in favour of the current wording. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]