Re: [address-policy-wg] Allocation vs assignment question
-
To: Amar amar@localhost
-
From: "Makc The Great" <makc.the.great@localhost
-
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:29:33 +0200
-
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tiSY6UAzfESmayHY3FFokpk16iYU2rkkv3GAjwtweyaOL5tpIToYPADyIfhY/0jZY5zK2qvp9Dvx86GEvIPzIkt5XbgnVUgCEhiXzeh7mQwrhqyBMuR6eLoXFqKcsaEGXrj3E794nrk3RhvzQWY+n+Gsu3WNs98TC/iX5hfRVV4=
So, overall consensus here is like this:
On 12/4/06, Amar amar@localhost wrote:
Ergo: There has not to be any connection between
subnets for each assignment. It is done
based on the proven need and not on a
physical connection between the requesters
networks.
Could you please explain then what does "Sub-allocations are intended
to aid the goal of routing aggregation" phrase means in english?
|
you are here: RIPE -> RIPE Maillists > Archives
