[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Job Snijders
job at instituut.net
Mon Oct 7 13:21:40 CEST 2019
Perhaps Kai referred to the RIR system as a whole, not RIPE specifically. If a /4 goes to the RIRs that would be a perspective we’d need to consider on a global scale. On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 20:19 Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote: > Gert Doering wrote on 07/10/2019 11:56: > > I take a bit of offense here. We did what we could to "protect the > > newcomers" with the "last /22" policy, but "gone is gone" - there just is > > not enough v4, what else could we have done? > > No need to take offense - it's normal for our species to want to assign > blame when we're upset, and even more normal to want to fling poo at > other people to show how upset we are. > > It's not as if ipv4 exhaustion snuck up on everyone unnoticed. If > people don't like how things were handled, then why they didn't pipe up > with their suggestions while the problem was being discussed any time > over the last 25 years? It seems a bit odd to start complaining at the > point that the registries were scraping the last bits of address space > from the bottom of the barrel. > > Nick > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20191007/1fbfd188/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]