[address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 05:27:51PM +0200, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
> On 03/07/14 15:38, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
> > And for the records: count me in as #7 if you wish - I remain fully
> > unconvinced for the time being.
> 
> here's #8 :)

For the sake of general sanity: please stop *that*.

I think from a community consensus building pov, we have had clear feedback
that if this is to be considered as a policy at all, it needs to be fleshed
out in much more specific detail, also taking the cons into account.

As in:

 - who will get extra address space?  exactly under which conditions?

 - why is this helping?

 - what will be the consequences to routing table size, address pool,
   newcomers to the market in 5, 10 years?


Even with a very specific proposal on the table (which would not need to
describe the specific paragraphs to be changed in the RIPE policy documents,
just the very exact "rules" to be followed - think of it as an algorithm
for people to follow), I'm not sure it will go anywhere, but it would at
least address some of the feedback given so far.

I do not think further comments basically repeating what has been said
before will change the situation.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140703/5a2091cd/attachment.sig>