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] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carsten Schiefner
ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de
Sun Apr 17 23:59:01 CEST 2016
Riccardo, On 15.04.2016 07:48, Riccardo Gori wrote: > with all respect I don't see a "remarkable success" in current last /8 > policy. > We are dealing with the same amount of space as September 2012 so it works as designed me thinks. > that in the meanwhile has been abused in several ways Please define "abuse in several ways". You are also encouraged to suggest potential remedies per item. > and there are really no incentives to IPv6 adoption. How about: making your Internet outfit future-poof? Sounds pretty convincing to me. Best, -C.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]