[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Wed Oct 27 13:39:39 CEST 2010
On 27 Oct 2010, at 01:39, Nick Hilliard wrote: > My own opinion is that the advantages are quite significant. The > disadvantages certainly exist, but are less significant. Therefore I > support the proposal. +1 > There is no right answer for a proposal like this. Contention for > scarce > resources is fundamentally contentious. We just have to live with > that. I agree. There is no perfect solution and I hope we can give up on that quest. So let's settle for something that's good enough -- ie 2010-02 -- and get on with it. There will always be some way for a consensus policy to be gamed. So it's better to have ways of detecting that and acting on it instead of looking for a policy that is immune to manipulation. And have that in place before v4 runs out. > If it turns out that significant implementation problems arise, the > proposal can be changed. Nothing is set in stone. True. Though I doubt this matters. If there are implementation difficulties, these should act as a natural brake on depletion. And anyway the chances are v4 will be gone by the time a revised policy could be adopted. I'm also unsure if strict checks on access the near-empty v4 shelves in the corner shop will matter much when there's a hypermarket next door that's over-filled with v6.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]