BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested

Job Snijders job at instituut.net
Thu Mar 12 19:12:18 UTC 2015


On Mar 12, 2015 8:08 PM, "joel jaeggli" <joelja at 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


More information about the NANOG mailing list