[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Ingvoldstad
frettled at gmail.com
Sun Apr 17 09:01:18 CEST 2016
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Adrian Pitulac <adrian at idsys.ro> wrote: > > I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see no real > argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no prediction, just > "keep the ipv4 last longer". Can you do better than that? > > Is this your best argument *for* the policy? That you haven't read enough posts well enough to find the arguments against, nor to find the statistics, the trends, the predictions? Seriously? -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160417/833183d1/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]