Hi,
I also support this proposal, after reading the NCC's impact analysis.
I was a bit surprised to see there is a /13 reserved for temporary
assignments, and only a /15 for IXPs (just read also 2023-01...).
I would also like to add a +1 to what Cynthia wrote, even if this will
require a
I support the policy proposal.
However, I would prefer to see the second paragraph of the proposed article
3.3 reworded. Currently it's just one really long sentence and it was a bit
difficult for me to read. I'm pretty sure that I got the point but I think
it should be improved and disambiguated
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 10:03:44AM +0100, Angela Dall'Ara wrote:
> Policy proposal 2023-02, "Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments",
> is now in the Review Phase.
I still support the proposed change.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
On 03/04/2023 18:03, Angela Dall'Ara wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Policy proposal 2023-02, "Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments",
is now in the Review Phase.
It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is simply
a restatement of your input from the previous phase.
Dear colleagues,
Policy proposal 2023-02, "Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments",
is now in the Review Phase.
This policy proposal recommends setting the minimum assignment size for
IPv4 temporary assignments to a /24,while still allowing for a smaller
assignment if requested by the
