[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

Perhaps Kai referred to the RIR system as a whole, not RIPE specifically.
If a /4 goes to the RIRs that would be a perspective we’d need to consider
on a global scale.

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 20:19 Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:

> Gert Doering wrote on 07/10/2019 11:56:
> > I take a bit of offense here.  We did what we could to "protect the
> > newcomers" with the "last /22" policy, but "gone is gone" - there just is
> > not enough v4, what else could we have done?
>
> No need to take offense - it's normal for our species to want to assign
> blame when we're upset, and even more normal to want to fling poo at
> other people to show how upset we are.
>
> It's not as if ipv4 exhaustion snuck up on everyone unnoticed.  If
> people don't like how things were handled, then why they didn't pipe up
> with their suggestions while the problem was being discussed any time
> over the last 25 years?  It seems a bit odd to start complaining at the
> point that the registries were scraping the last bits of address space
> from the bottom of the barrel.
>
> Nick
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20191007/1fbfd188/attachment.html>