[arin-ppml] question about NRPM 'efficient utilization' criteria
mysidia at gmail.com
Sat Oct 15 15:23:46 EDT 2011
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
Not that I am in favor of the change; I would strongly prefer the
table option to still exist, and for the table to be restored, but
2010_14 was rather explicit
"Strike sections 220.127.116.11.2., 18.104.22.168.4. and 22.214.171.124.5."
The table option for accounting for additional utilization was
specifically striken from the policy
by that particular change.
And now we have a situation that needs to be corrected, where we have
one policy referring to another policy that no longer exists.
> I don't think that's correct. I think the reference to the table governs and the table should be restored (with appropriate referential updates) to a more appropriate location.
More information about the ARIN-PPML