AW: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3

Hi!

> There are dozens of cost optimization guys around, but
> the cost of one RIPE extraordinary general meeting doesn't
> worry us because we are putting a lot of effort into IPv6
> trials and we can see light at the end of the tunnel.

What's meetings got to do with IPv6 trials?

> If your company isn't doing internal trials of IPv6 with
> selected customers, then yes, you should probably start 
> looking for another job.

Did you take a look at the v6-dfz before writing this?
At a quick glance in Frankfurt I see slightly more v6 downstream asn advertised from 8881 than from 5400. ;-)

But enough on that... that's no topic for an apwg discussion.


Marcus

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering IP Services

Versatel West GmbH

Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29
D-44143 Dortmund

Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491
marcus.gerdon at versatel.de | www.versatel.de

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 
Geschäftsführer: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net 
> [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von 
> michael.dillon at bt.com
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. August 2009 16:35
> An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Betreff: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3
> 
> 
> > sounds like your company is faring rather well... sending at 
> > least one person to any meeting, just jet'ing for a weeks 
> > meeting to Dubai... You've supposedly not seen any 'costs 
> > optimized by reduced staff' guy around for a long time. 
> 
> There are dozens of cost optimization guys around, but
> the cost of one RIPE extraordinary general meeting doesn't
> worry us because we are putting a lot of effort into IPv6
> trials and we can see light at the end of the tunnel.
> 
> Don't ever forget that soon nobody will really NEED IPv4 
> addresses any more because IPv6 is a viable alternative.
> If your company isn't doing internal trials of IPv6 with
> selected customers, then yes, you should probably start 
> looking for another job.
> 
> > > If some people feel that the meeting is not important 
> > enough to make 
> > > an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote.
> > > Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or 
> > because they've 
> > > already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no difference.
> > 
> > I think you're definitely wrong on this - and imho somewhat 
> > quite arrogant by that.
> > 
> > RIPE's open to anybody, anybody being allowed to become a 
> > member. But excluding a bunch of members from the meetings by 
> > sheer cost (or time) is fine for you. The current practice of 
> > having to be physically on site for a vote has to stop 
> > soonest possible. 
> 
> Please do not criticise my proposal because you disagree with
> how RIPE currently functions. If you have a criticism with how
> RIPE members vote, please take it to the appropriate venue. If
> RIPE does begin to allow remote participation and voting in a
> general meeting, that doesn't change my proposal in any way.
> 
> > We're in internet business - and rely on 
> > phys presence. That's ridicilous.
> 
> It's also ridiculous that we have so little IPv6 deployment that
> we have to argue over how to distribute the last few crumbs of
> IPv4 addressing. Why does the Internet still rely on this ancient
> protocol over 10 years after IPv6 was introduced?
> 
> So, how do you propose to distribute the final /8 fairly?
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 
>