[address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Chris
chrish at consol.net
Tue Apr 3 12:16:10 CEST 2012
On 04/03/2012 11:56 AM, Sascha Luck wrote: > sure, but a minimum allocation may be larger than the sum of the assignments - that doesn't mean the NCC can we seem to have diverging understandings of 'minimum' here... > reclaim part of that allocation - or can it? i'd say this is one of the many cases i can imagine/construct where that wouldn't make much sense... (and i'm personally more interested in relevant cases, forgive me if i won't spend much more effort on this - if you want you could e.g. also think about increasing the minimum prefixlength for bgp for this purpose) > one might as well make a policy that required the return of unused allocation parts. that's the current situation, and it's being done by ncc (surprisingly where it makes sense ;). regards, Chris
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]