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/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carsten Schiefner
ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de
Tue Dec 6 12:12:32 CET 2005
Hi Gert, Gert Doering wrote: >On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 07:14:33PM +0100, Carsten Schiefner wrote: >>Also, such a policy is most likely in direct conflict with one of the >>basic paradigms of a RIR - which is equal treatment of its members in >>equal circumstances. > > Circumstances before and after reaching a given number of routes are > not "equal". where _eaxctly!_ sits the difference between LIR #5000 and LIR #5001 - to pick up your example? And why is '5,000' _not!_ totally arbitrary? Although I am mostly agnostic wrt. the general discussion here so far, I am absolutely in line with Andre Oppermann's comment that we better have profound and sound answers to those questions ready before such a policy would be put in place - because they would be asked the second after anyways, most likely by these well-known, interested third parties... Best, Carsten
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]