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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Fri Oct 30 08:33:46 CET 2015
* Gert Doering <gert at space.net> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 05:59:44PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > On 29/10/2015 14:38, Gert Doering wrote: > > > Call to order. Wishing for non-existant technologies to overcome > > > IPv4 shortage is totally off-topic here. > > > > Can I also humbly suggest adding "let's make the RIPE NCC take > > existing IPv4 allocations away from someone else (and give them to > > me)" to this list? > > Technically, this would be a matter for this working group (coming up > with a reclaim policy for unused allocations) - but that would have > to be a separate proposal. Might we instead inist that the «let's make the RIPE NCC take existing IPv4 allocations away from someone else (and give them to me)» crowd actually submits a formal policy proposal to that effect? If it turns out they're unwilling to do so, we could call them to order due to the purpose of this list isn't to be a wailing wall for people to vent about wanting more IPv4 addresses. If on the other hand a proposal does get submitted, we could discuss it on its merits. (After the proposal has gone the way I believe it would, it would be appropriate to reconsider Nick's suggestion.) Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]