[178868] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Job Snijders)
Thu Mar 12 15:14:43 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <5501E3CF.8060807@bogus.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:12:18 +0100
From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Cc: bcop-support@nanog.org, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mar 12, 2015 8:08 PM, "joel jaeggli" <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/12/15 12:01 PM, Yardiel D. Fuentes wrote:
> > In the above page, the idea is to introduce a 100-th range for each
category and as the BCOPs. This way a 100th number range generally
identifies each of the categories we currently have. An example is:
>
> identifier/locator overload.
>
> giving intergers intrinsic meaning is generally a mistake imho.
I agree with Joel
