[address-policy-wg] IPv4-HD-Ratio proposal

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:48:06 +0200 (MEST), "Thor-Henrik Kvandahl"
<thk at telenor.net> said:
> I do not support this proposal, and my reasons for this are:
> 
> * This proposal increases the rate of consumption of IPv4.
> * It favourises the large ISPs.
> * In the presentation on RIPE 52, Tuesday by Filiz Yilmaz, we where told
>   that this proposal was abandoned by ARIN and APNIC, and one
>   representative from LacNIC also stood up and expressed their conserns.
>   I have not heard anything from AfriNIC, but I cannot see why they would
>   want to implement this policy. I feel if will be arrogant of the RIPE
>   community to disregard the other RIRs conserns and implement this
>   policy.

I agree with the above. The only one I've heard arguing heavily in favor
of the HD-ratio proposal was a representative for a large international
backbone who saw this as an opportunity to compensate for bad internal
distribution of assigned address-blocks. I don't think any-body's
inability to come up with a decent network design is a reason to accept
such changes to the policy.


> 
> And I also have to agree with Gert Doering who said in the address policy
> WG that there has been very quiet around this proposal, and that the
> reason for this can be that ETNO claims thay "unanimously support this
> proposal".

Does this mean that ETNO assume they have some form of veto in the RIPE
community? I can't see any reason why ETNO's vote should count for more
than any other _individual's_ opinion regardless of who they claim to
represent. 

//per
-- 
  Per Heldal
  http://heldal.eml.cc/