[address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD rati o policy proposal

• Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD rati o policy proposal
• Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD ratio policy proposal

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

McTim dogwallah at gmail.com
Sun Jul 10 15:40:55 CEST 2005

Hi Hans,

I agree with karsten, and do NOT support this policy change.

Why:
Conservation of v4 space is a greater priority for me than potentially
easing V. large registries adminstrative overhead.

In fact, I have never been convinced about this being a "problem" in
the first place. In terms of hierarchy, as long as your v4
sub-allocation or assignment is in the RIPE Db, it is considered in
use and counts as part of the 80%.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

• Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD rati o policy proposal
• Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD ratio policy proposal

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ address-policy-wg Archives ]