[ipv6-wg] Re: Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6

Hi,

Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 06:27:24PM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>>Those kind of ideas can only come from folks who are already in the
>>business and have their own allocation already. *shaking head*
> 
> Unlike some other participants on this list, I'm actually aiming for
> something that could reach consensus.
> 
> Otherwise, all this is wasted time, and we could directly go to ITU and
> ask them to fix the Internet.

yes, please, fix the internet. I'd say we elect an Internet king which
gives out all the rules! Worked for some hundret years.

...joke aside. The problem with consensus is, that it won't be reached
with discussions, because in the internet world there is no
"tie-breaker" who will finally make the descision about the outcome of
the discussion ("no king").

The only way is to post some detailed policy suggestions and have some
kind of voting about it, either in public (e.g. usenet-wise) or on
RIPE/RIR level.

That will give you at least some more exact numbers on the majority for
or against a certain suggestion.

I can't really tell about what's the most favoured policy for IPv6
Allocations and PI Address Assignments at the moment. It's not
nescessarily the policy favoured by the ones who bark the loudest during
the discussions.

-- 
========================================================================
= Sascha Lenz                  SLZ-RIPE          slz at baycix.de         =
= Network Operations                                                   =
= BayCIX GmbH, Landshut                  * PGP public Key on demand *  =
========================================================================