[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 ]
Brian Nisbet
brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Fri May 30 15:48:44 CEST 2008
Randy Bush wrote: >> 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. A lesson in not writing emails when one is in a hurry somewhere. The comment on it being equally an exercise in planning was lost in the editing process. I fully agree with you. >> 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. Then I was veering into stating the obvious, but it was not something I had seen stated fully before. Thanks for the additional background. Brian.
- 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 ]