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 ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Wed Jun 1 23:33:35 CEST 2011
> 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... Sorry, you lost me there... I was talking about preventing IPv4 pain. IPv4 will still be important for many years. I wish there was enough IPv6 deployed to avoid this, but there isn't. A year from now the NCC won't have any new IPv4 addresses to hand out, while the majority of communication on the internet will still use IPv4. Our task is to keep the internet running as smoothly as possible. (Unfortunately) this still includes IPv4. Sander
- 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 ]