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

On 17/04/16 10:01, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Adrian Pitulac <adrian at idsys.ro 
> <mailto:adrian at idsys.ro>> wrote:
>
>
>     I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see no
>     real argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no
>     prediction, just "keep the ipv4 last longer". Can you do better
>     than that?
>
>
> Is this your best argument *for* the policy? That you haven't read 
> enough posts well enough to find the arguments against, nor to find 
> the statistics, the trends, the predictions? Seriously?
> -- 
> Jan


Jan, I think you should read my previous posts, I've come up with 
several arguments, none of which have been seriously discussed and 
analyzed.

Also FYI I've been reading the discussions here for a long time, and 
this intervention is my first because I see the same explanation again 
and again without no base.

This should be a discussion on arguments not just a presentation of 
personal "default" denial of any change to policy. This is what I saw 
until now. I was under the impression that people here can start a 
discussion and analyze the *for* and *against* arguments until we reach 
a conclusion. Am I wrong?




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160417/cf516da7/attachment.html>