[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

On Sunday 17 April 2016, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:

> >>> I seriously liking the idea of some APNIC colleagues "no more v4
> >>> policy from today on".
> >> that was my proposal.  the sitting apnic address policy chair went into
> >> bureaucratic insanity and drowned it.
> > Hoesntly, I think it is best companion policy goes alone with the last
> > /8 policy, as we all know and expected people would love to come back
> > propose to get the last piece of free pile eatted now instead of in
> > few years.
>
> well, it is some years too late for it to go along with the last /8,
> policy unless you have a time machine.  but it might mean we won't have
> to deal with the endless proposals to modify the last /8 policy which
> seem to come up every year, flood the mailing list, and eventually fail.
>
>
Exactly, the sad part is, this is essentially the last and only thing you
can propose a policy regarding v4.

But if it is indeed the only thing you can propose about v4(to distribute
last /8 faster than now), and most folks here agree that we shouldn't do
that, then it is a simple logic, the only policy you can propose regarding
v4 will be something people surely disagree, why would we need future
proposal regarding v4.


randy
>


-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160417/1fbce375/attachment.html>