exactly. The draft policy covers a wide range of end-users and as
such we need to consider the needs of all of them.
If I'm an IXP (don't need the prefix to show up in the "global routing
table") and would like a /96 please...
... then I'd have no problem with that statement.
Admitted, not many will want to justify a longer prefix ....
If clarification can be added without blowing or restricting things,
that's of course welcome.
PS: right to use only the new list name now?
I think it's time we all adjusted, me included :-)
resource-policy mailing list