[PDB User] "ipv4 prefixes" / "ipv6 prefixes" semantics

[Mark Tinka]

On 2/Aug/17 11:52, Job Snijders wrote:

> I'd like it to mean "This is what NTT generally recommends as the
> maximum prefix limit on EBGP sessions where you expect NTT to announce
> their customer cone", so that the listed values can be used verbatim in
> provisioning systems.

That is what we imply it to mean.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/user-discuss/attachments/20170802/de13bfe5/attachment.html>