[address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]

> 
> From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net
> [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Wilhelm
> Boeddinghaus
> Sent: 12. marraskuuta 2014 11:26
> To: Aleksi Suhonen; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing
> lists]
> 
>  
> 
> Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen:
>
>       Hello,
>
>       On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote:
>
>       Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we
>       need
>       two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as
>       normal
>       IP address is the day we really in a world of v6.
> 
>
>       In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only
>       about address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate
>       mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In
>       essence, I support this proposal.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I do not support this proposal. Renaming the WG to "resource-policy" would
> be ok, but this is not the important point. The "address-policy" WG deals
> with how we give IP  adresses to members and non members, it is about
> contracts and fair distribution of resources in a fairly large region.
> 
> In the IPv6 working group we deal with the technical aspects of IPv6, just
> have a look at the presentation Jen Linkova gave in London. Or have a look
> into the drafts of the IPv6 working groups at the IETF. There is still a lot
> of research going on. And many organisations just start with IPv6. Learning
> from others is very valuable. These aspects would not be addressed in a
> "resource-policy" WG.
> 
> I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the
> policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But please
> let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We will need
> that for the next 10 years until we all have as much experience with IPv6 as
> we have with IPv4 today.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Wilhelm
> 
> 
> 
Hi all,

I fully agree with Wilhelm.

Rgds,

Ray