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] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sergey Stecenko
stecenkoserj at gmail.com
Thu Oct 20 22:07:02 CEST 2016
Hi. If I am not wrong, the main idea of the NCC is to switch to IPv6 networks. But it strongly tries to stretch this process. This proposal will create more problems than benefit. If you remember the NCC already restricted multi LIR accounts and then asked members to vote to cancel it. Moreover there is already 24 month restriction for transfers. It is enough. So I opposite this proposal. --- Rgds, Serj 2016-10-20 22:44 GMT+03:00 Stefan van Westering <stefan at softtech.nl>: > Hi, > > I do not know if this is the right place. If not please direct me to the > proper location to "vote" for this proposal. > > I support this proposal and thus: > I say +1 for the proposal. > > With kind regards, > > > > Stefan van Westering > > > > SoftTech Automatisering B.V. > > > Op 20 okt. 2016 om 12:29 heeft Gert Doering <gert at space.net> het volgende > geschreven: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:24:12PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > 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 ? > > > Please do NOT mix comments to different policies into an e-mail that > has a Subject: that says "2016-03". > > This makes it MUCH harder for the chairs to go back to the mail archives > later on and see who said what regarding a specific proposal - and then, > if I cannot remember "oh, there was a comment about 2015-04 in a 2016-03 > thread", you're going to complain that I have ignored your comment. Right? > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]