[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Mon Jun 20 11:30:32 CEST 2016
> On 20 Jun 2016, at 09:04, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > > But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further changes > to the IPv4 policy +1 > - the "new LIR" folks here are accting in a fairly > irresponsible way regarding *future* participants, while at the same > time complaining that they are treated unfairly by the old LIRs - totally > ignoring the fact that *without the foresight of these old LIRs* you > wouldn't have any space at all today. Indeed. The irony of this is completely lost on these "new LIR” folks”. A possible compromise might be a requirement for future IPv4 policy proposals to show that they do not disadvantage future participants or increase the burn rate of the remaining IPv4 pool. Same thing really.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]