[address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Ingvoldstad
frettled at gmail.com
Wed Feb 6 13:21:02 CET 2019
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 1:10 PM Kai 'wusel' Siering <wusel+ml at uu.org> wrote: > On 06.02.2019 12:32, Denis Fondras wrote: > > If you keep there /22 and /24 as an option, than there would be no problem. > > No please, don't let LIR choose. This will only complicate management of > resources. > > > It's a simple flag, "/24 sufficienct: yes/no". > The flag is simple, and most people will then select "no", because they want to ensure that they get the most. Imagine if you were a Dropbox customer, and Dropbox offered two paid storage plans for $200/mo: 1) 250 GB 2) 1 TB and then you were presented with the simple flag, "250 GB sufficient: yes/no" What would you choose? My bet is that you would choose "no" and request 1 TB. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190206/a83adb4b/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]