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 ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Fri Nov 15 13:22:08 CET 2019
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote on 14/11/2019 17:46: > 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. It looks like the pool is probably large enough to last indefinitely under the current assignment policy. It's not clear what changing the assignment policy is going to fix. Nick
- 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 ]