[address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Tue May 8 17:09:05 CEST 2012
>> Alright then, for the sake of argument I'll oppose until I see some >> convincing numbers. Back in the original last /8 discussion the rationale >> for choosing a /22 was that it would get us about 16k final allocations, >> or 1 for every NCC member and room for the membership to double in size. > we need to move away from this idea of how to expand the RIPE NCC > membership and think more in terms of how to serve the RIPE community. while i definitely agree with your statement, i that is not how i took remco's comment. i see the final /8 policy (i as an author of the equivalent in apnic) as a fairness issue, trying to ensure there is space for new entrants, after we old hogs gobbled so much of it up. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]