This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck
lists-ripe at c4inet.net
Wed Jun 1 23:21:40 CEST 2011
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 11:04:05PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: > It will take some time (it can be done in about 10 weeks) to do > this should the need ever occur, but as this is a last-resort exit > strategy I think this is acceptable. Is this an acceptable solution > for everybody? the absolute minimum I would accept is a sunset clause (ie the policy will run to a fixed date (say 2 years away) and will not be in force unless explicitly prorogued thereafter) > And I would really like to get a solution for this problem, because > I am much more afraid of IPv4 address space hijacks once the NCC > IPv4 pool runs out... In my book that is an argument against it. Anything that prolongs the IPv4 pain, especially at the cost of having a censorship infrastructure imposed on *all* internet routing (not just v4) can't be good... rgds, s.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]