[178870] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Tauber)
Thu Mar 12 15:23:41 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CACWOCC--t-NjM9h2yHteVWKi_=s5B7shj3YzqZbhoxYNq295Qg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:23:32 -0400
From: Tony Tauber <ttauber@1-4-5.net>
To: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Cc: bcop-support@nanog.org, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Totally. Also, then what if something is in the intersection of multiple
"areas".
Complexity that's not needed.
Tony
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> wrote:
> 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
>
