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 ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Wed Jul 17 20:41:42 CEST 2019
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 17/07/2019 19:22: > 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. Jordi, this has nothing to do with fairness. The RIPE community has a policy for dealing with legacy resources and legacy resource holders. By having this policy, the RIPE Community has openly declared that it accepts that legacy resources are a fair and reasonable part of the number resource ecosystem. Nick
- 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 ]