[address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Karrenberg
daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net
Wed Apr 8 16:40:22 CEST 2009
On 07.04 20:58, Remco van Mook wrote: > > Dear Daniel, dear all, > > First of all I support this proposal, and thank you for taking the time to > create it. I think the idea has great merit, but I?m also reminded of an > idea I sent out to the address policy mailing list and the feedback I got > based on that. For that thread, see: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00501. > html . Just to refresh your memory, I proposed a policy that would only > allocate a single block of space, regardless of the size of the request and > available remaining inventory. One of the main shortcomings of my idea was > that assignments from a new allocation don?t happen in a ?gradual? way, > which is one of the main assumptions behind any scheme based on > time-windows. Larger organizations will just come back quicker ? not > necessarily after the set window. I?m afraid this proposal has the same > ?weakness?. > > Kind regards, > > Remco That can be so, but still the requests will be chopped up so that others can get in the queue rather than being pre-empted by a huge request. Daniel
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]