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] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Wed Jul 17 20:22:35 CEST 2019
Hi Gert, I just sent an email with the clarification of the proposals in the other RIRs. The point here is that what I consider a valid argument (fairness for as much overall community as possible and a bad thing otherwise, so a problem), you think is not. This is a valid disagreement, of course and this is just part of the process to improve our policies. El 17/7/19 20:15, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> escribió: Hi, On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 08:01:44PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > We, as a community, should look for the benefit of the community. You still fail to bring forward a clear reasoning this would be so. If you argue "the buyer wants this!" it's not an argument why this would be "beneficial for the community" - but more an argument for why no change is needed. > I've already said this, but let me to repeat it: This is my opinion, and it looks was the opinion of the other 4 RIR communities. From what I've heard so far, this was not an explicit change but more a "it happened somewhere along the historic evolution of things". So, "the opinion of the other 4 RIR communities" might be exaggerating a slight bit > You opinion can be diverse, of course, but it is clear that I'm not alone. I fail to see much support for your well-formulated problem statement. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]