RE: [sig-policy]the size of sparse allocation

To: Takashi Arano <arano@inetcore.com>
Subject: RE: [sig-policy]the size of sparse allocation
From: Takashi Arano <arano@inetcore.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:32:14 +0900
Cc: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net>, <sig-policy@apnic.net>
In-reply-to: <5.0.2.5.2.20030827182630.04b06ec8@localhost>
List-archive: <http://www.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: <04fb01c36c66$23ee7540$891d0cca@apnic.net><5.0.2.5.2.20030827130203.07096cf8@localhost>
Sender: sig-policy-admin@lists.apnic.net

At 18:32 03/08/27, Takashi Arano wrote:

Yes. Now I believe /12 seems large enough, based on the above.

I also think it would be smarter not to spend too much time on the size
discussion but to implement the policy as soon as possible,
because v6 swamp is being created daily....

All these comments of mine are personal, not chair's suggestion.

Regards,
Arano

References:
- RE: [sig-policy]the size of sparse allocation
  - From: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net>
- Re: [sig-policy]the size of sparse allocation
  - From: Takashi Arano <arano@inetcore.com>
- RE: [sig-policy]the size of sparse allocation
  - From: Takashi Arano <arano@inetcore.com>

Prev by Date: RE: [sig-policy]the size of sparse allocation
Next by Date: Re: [sig-policy]the size of sparse allocation
Previous by thread: RE: [sig-policy]the size of sparse allocation
Next by thread: Re: [sig-policy]the size of sparse allocation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread