[address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Richard Hartmann
richih.mailinglist at gmail.com
Mon Sep 17 13:02:57 CEST 2012
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie> wrote: > On 17/09/2012 10:47, Gert Doering wrote: >> ... I'm not sure if "every time the available pool for X is empty, just >> grab another slice of the rest and declare it to be 'available for X, but >> limited!!'" is a reasonable strategy... > > +1 > > To be clear, as proposer of this policy, I'm interested in a long term > solution for PI so that we have long term policy clarity for PI assignment > in the RIPE service region. I'm not interested in a series of stop-gap > measures. Strong agreement on both from me. I support this PDP precisely because it enables fair run-out without arbitrary limits or temporary stop-gaps. -- Richard
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]