[address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

On 27 Jun 2007, at 00:41, Jeroen Massar wrote:

> See the various other discussions about ULA-C

	I have, and I'm disappointed by what seems to me, on both (all?) sides
	to be a combination of hidden agendas, prejudice, grandstanding, and
	refusal to acknowledge that the opposing argument may even be made in
	good faith.

> and the amount of
> questions that have been raised and remain unanswered and start  
> tapping
> into that and answering them, then we can proceed with that part. Upto
> now those questions remain open and as such there actually is not  
> even a
> real case at all why such space should exist, except for some people
> wanting to have "really cheap PI" space for vaguely defined examples.
>
> And that case can be solved by what Gert proposed, thus then there
> really is no need any more for ULA-C.

	Simply repeating your opinion isn't going to convince me that it
	has a real basis.


	Best regards,

	Niall O'Reilly
	University College Dublin IT Services

	PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net)
	Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070627/8f7c89fb/attachment.sig>