[address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 08:33:22PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
> Yes, for old folks here, things seems obvious,  but I believe we still need
> to have next generation people here to participate the discussion, if we do
> not understand where we ware coming from, how we understand the way to
> develop future?

I do not think that this is particularily relevant here.  The status 
"we have plenty of IPv4 but need to ensure fairness between different
ISPs' customers" will not come back - and IPv6 is significantly different
that not much can be learned by IPv4's restrictive policies.

If you have a specific question, you're welcome to ask.  

But generic "what if... and can you remember the good old times?" stuff 
are just noise to most of the participants of the list - so, discuss this
at a beer with others who are interested, but not here.

> As I have explained in my last Email, understanding of some key element in
> our past policy will help us going future with our current policy
> development.

Not in this vagueness.

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: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151203/cb9dc0af/attachment.sig>