[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 ]
h.lu at anytimechinese.com
h.lu at anytimechinese.com
Fri Apr 22 18:11:29 CEST 2016
Hi Fairly speaking, if market price above certain point, people will deplete the pool really fast, as long as it makes business sense. Unless we start using /24 policy in which effectively encourage people seek growth in the transfer market---in which it is what it should be, is not such a bad idea. > On 23 Apr 2016, at 00:00, Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote: > > Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: >> I do understand that. I just do not agree with the "as long as possible, >> no matter what" approach. >> For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the >> solution is not working yet" situation. > > and your solution is that you want future market entrants to suffer more > than you're suffering now because there will be no address space > whatsoever left for them? > > Nick >
- 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 ]