[address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Wed Jul 17 20:41:42 CEST 2019
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 17/07/2019 19:22: > The point here is that what I consider a valid argument (fairness for > as much overall community as possible and a bad thing otherwise, so a > problem), you think is not. This is a valid disagreement, of course > and this is just part of the process to improve our policies. Jordi, this has nothing to do with fairness. The RIPE community has a policy for dealing with legacy resources and legacy resource holders. By having this policy, the RIPE Community has openly declared that it accepts that legacy resources are a fair and reasonable part of the number resource ecosystem. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]