[address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Fri May 30 14:53:36 CEST 2008
> I see 2008-03 as an exercise in fairness, a way to evenly distribute > the last few /8s, rather than reaching a point where, particularly, > AfriNIC and LACNIC need more addresses and find there to be none. more than that, it is an exercise in planning. an rir can count on having one last /8 instead of hitting the wall in surprise when their sibling got there ten minutes prior. > However it strikes me that this policy is completely incompatible > with 2007-09. this is not an accident. the author of -9 is in extreme opposition to -3 and has crafted -9 to very intentionally nullify and circumvent -3. it is notable that -3 got massive support in the arin meeting, and is generally supported in the other regions though not yet passed, and -9 has been pretty much rejected worldwide. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]