[address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Mon Jun 20 11:23:12 CEST 2016
> On 20 Jun 2016, at 10:16, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > > - do we want to restrict trading of "last /8 policy" /22s, yes or no? > ... > But do not complain about the potential consequences, please just answer > the question. No. Maybe. Depends. If we do tweak the current policy, there’s one consequence that has to be considered though: the integrity and accuracy of the RIPE database. PS: Apologies for starting a new thread with a meaningful and relevant Subject: header.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]