[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

On Thursday, October 20, 2016, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:

> > If I would moderate the list I would remove people
>
> let's not
>
> Ok, I can be a hater too sometimes but I don't like it.

> I lived under the communist time and I know how it is when a leader
> > says something wrong but he believes is right and a bunch of penguins
> > just sit in the room and applause.
>
> i assure you that this is not just from communist times.  are you seeing
> what is going on in britain, the states, ...?
>
> Yes, bullshit (I was told this is an acceptable word here) happens all
over the world and we are bringing it here as well.


> could you please set an example and pick one small issue in this
> document and discuss its pros and cons?
>

I oppose both policies.

For 2015-04 it's obvious, a policy that is supposed to arrange my hair
nicer would make me bold. You either do a cosmetic reorganisation or
important changes which should never be added just like that, as some
changes are minor and shouldn't be discussed (but in a different policy)

As for 2016-03 I think we should set our goals right. Isn't everybody
saying that IPv4 is dead for over 4 years already ? Isn't everybody saying
that the only way forward is to IPv6 and exhausting RIPE's available pool
sooner would help people move to IPv6 ?

Let's discuss a single fact which should guide us towards properly
improving policies.

What do you people want ? To kill IPv4 or to make it more desirable, more
valuable ? Let's first agree on this and after that we can set our foot in
the right direction.

Ciprian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161020/7dc670d4/attachment.html>