This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Erich Hohermuth
eh at solnet.ch
Tue Aug 29 11:02:27 CEST 2006
Hi > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html > > > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > > <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 26 September 2006. The proposal make sense but we have to look deeper into the problem of increase the prefixes. If someone ask for multihoming with PI Space, it makes sense that we assign a size which will work with the current filtering policies. But maybe we have to change the policy about PI Space in general ? The question is, which "problems" do we rate as a higher risk; waste of ip space, amount of prefixes, reach ability of a subnet. What do you think ? Regards Erich -- * Erich Hohermuth IP Engineer - SolNet (AS 9044) PGPKEY-46A08FCB * * phone: +41 32 686 8220 / sip:9044*463 at inoc-dba.pch.net *
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]