nanog mailing list archives
Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested
From: Job Snijders <job () instituut net>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:12:18 +0100
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
Current thread:
- BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested Yardiel D. Fuentes (Mar 12)
- Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested joel jaeggli (Mar 12)
- Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested Job Snijders (Mar 12)
- Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested Tony Tauber (Mar 12)
- Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested Job Snijders (Mar 12)
- Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested Owen DeLong (Mar 12)
- Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested George, Wes (Mar 13)
- Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested Andrew Sullivan (Mar 13)
- Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested Owen DeLong (Mar 13)
- Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested Rick Casarez (Mar 13)
- Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested Mel Beckman (Mar 13)
- Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested Lee Howard (Mar 13)
- RE: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested Phil Bedard (Mar 13)
- Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested Owen DeLong (Mar 13)
- Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested George, Wes (Mar 13)
- Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested joel jaeggli (Mar 12)