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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Tue May 17 20:23:49 CEST 2016
> On 17 May 2016, at 19:12, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj at gmail.com> wrote: > > What really amaze me. We are using tons of time here in ag-wg talking > over IPv4 while there is not half that activity over in IPv6-wg. Indeed. It’s like the old joke about politics in academia: the bickering and in-fighting is so acrimonious because the stakes are so low. Mind you, IPv6 address allocation policy is such a no-brainer it doesn’t need much work. Perhaps we can keep discussions on IPv4 allocation policies going until after the heat death of the universe. :-)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]