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

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

>
> You are talking about people addicted to Coca-Cola. You can't just ask
> them to plain stop drinking Coca-Cola, as long as you have some (and
> even if you no longer have, it's still difficult). You can just say "If
> you start drinking water, there may be some small amounts until you
> fully switch to water". At least that's the idea. And it's suposed to
> only be applied to small guys, since the big ones still have large
> stocks to support the transition.
>

I'm sorry, this reasoning simply doesn't make sense to me, in spite of the
slightly condescending answer from Adrian, and your continued use of the
analogy.

There is little evidence to support that line of reasoning, and all too
much against it.

Additionally, little thought seems to have been spent considering how this
should be implemented, I mostly see some hand-waving here.

My feeling is that this policy will serve two groups in particular:

- Speculants
- Spammers who want "clean" IPv4 space for their ventures, because IPv6
spamming isn't useful yet

While this clearly isn't the intent you have stated in your policy, I
believe this is what it will be used for, regrettably.
-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160422/7982bc48/attachment.html>