[address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Tue Jun 21 11:55:15 CEST 2016
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Sander Steffann wrote: > We are always very careful with linking policy to charging. We tried > that in the past and usually ran into some issues. If, however, the RIPE > NCC would adapt the charging scheme in this way then it would probably > make some policy proposals less relevant :) Ok, thanks for the clarification. I think this is however something that makes things a lot harder. It's like trying to do sports with your hands tied behind your back. Yes, you can probably get things done but it's a lot harder and usually results in a lot more work. Well, can't we at least take that idea to the current policy proposals, that we don't talk about "LIRs who have received a post-exhaustion /22" but instead talking about "LIRs containing..." What's happened in the past is less interesting than current situation? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]