Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Policy Proposal (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
Hi, On Oct 25, 2011, at 11:51, "Emilio Madaio" <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
I support this policy. I do have a question for clarification: andy, you speak about "peering LAN" in singular. How is the policy to be interpreted by the IPRAs for IXPs requesting space for different-size MTU peering LANs? A luxury we can't afford after runout, or? Best, Martin
On 26 Oct 2011, at 06:17, Martin Millnert wrote:
I do have a question for clarification: andy, you speak about "peering LAN" in singular. How is the policy to be interpreted by the IPRAs for IXPs requesting space for different-size MTU peering LANs? A luxury we can't afford after runout, or?
Sounds like an edge case, but in my mind this is just a second peering LAN, so still meets the description of a peering lan for situation described in the policy. Andy
participants (2)
-
Andy Davidson -
Martin Millnert