Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
- To: Terry Manderson <terry at terrym dot net>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
- From: David Conrad <drc at virtualized dot org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:29:01 -1000
- Cc: APNIC Policy SIG List <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <EDA97E12-4CDA-466D-838C-43C23976B496 at terrym dot net>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <49954E5C.90500@mesh.ad.jp> <m2skmiv82a.wl%randy@psg.com> <49995358.60508@nic.ad.jp> <49995D7F.9090505@nic.ad.jp> <49995ECE.8000906@nic.ad.jp> <m2d4di4k5o.wl%randy@psg.com> <499A4293.6070900@nic.ad.jp> <11D92EF4-AF1B-458E-9265-7AB5BCAEC759@terrym.net> <499A89CB.8030303@nic.ad.jp> <B7FD554D-99DA-42A2-86D8-FE2AE7A35222@terrym.net> <741B1A55-908A-4723-B5B0-05CE66CA60BA@virtualized.org> <EDA97E12-4CDA-466D-838C-43C23976B496@terrym.net>
On Feb 17, 2009, at 7:28 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:
Are they really like prefixes? knowing the RFC exclusions in 192/8? ie they really aren't equal size.
Sorry, I meant prefixes from within those two /8s.
The underlying element I'm trying to get across is let the businesses decide what is of value in the market place. Not the technical policy body.
I agree. Regards, -drc