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 ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Mon Jul 22 16:27:27 CEST 2019
> On 22 Jul 2019, at 14:26, Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> wrote: > > IMHO, this is not the case here. Let's try not to fall in the false dilemma here. I'm sorry Piotr, I strongly disagree. The idea that was being proposed imposes retroactive conditions on legacy address holders. Which is very wrong. Policies should never be imposed retroactively. If implemented, the suggested policy will discourage legacy holders from co-operating with the NCC, Which in turn encourages "creative" solutions to get around that hypothetical problem and therefore bring about new ways to undermine the integrity of the NCC database. I fail to see what the false dichotomy is. Or could be.
- 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 ]