[address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Thu Apr 27 13:56:06 CEST 2006
Hi, (removing ppml and global-v6, taking this to the address policy wg list) On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:56:27AM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote: > I don't see why the discussion is dragging out for so long. This isn't > rocket science. Let's just nail the policy down, and move on with > more productive work. As soon as anyone can come up with a policy draft that we all can *agree* upon, then we can go ahead. What I'm not seeing in your mail is a specific proposal on the rules that should be used in deciding "who will get an address block / routing table slot, and who will not" - and that's the main question here, no matter how the resulting address bits are called. Gert Doering -- RIPE APWG co-chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 92315 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]