Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns

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 thebusinesses decide what is of value in the market place. Not thetechnical policy body.


I agree.

Regards,
-drc

References:
- [sig-policy] thoughts on prop-068
  - From: Seiichi Kawamura <kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp>
- Re: [sig-policy] thoughts on prop-068
  - From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
- Re: [sig-policy] Inter-registry transfers (was:thoughts on prop-068)
  - From: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
- Re: [sig-policy] general opinions about the transfer proposal(s)
  - From: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
- Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
  - From: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
- Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
  - From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
- Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
  - From: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
- Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
  - From: Terry Manderson <terry@terrym.net>
- Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
  - From: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
- Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
  - From: Terry Manderson <terry@terrym.net>
- Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
  - From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
- Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
  - From: Terry Manderson <terry@terrym.net>