[address-policy-wg] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Ingvoldstad
frettled at gmail.com
Tue Nov 17 20:36:19 CET 2015
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote: > Tough. > > If you choose that approach to kludging around your IPv4 problems, the > consequences of that decision are yours alone. There are other ways of > making “better” use of your remaining IPv4 address space. Though they are > also ugly. Get over it. Sorry. > Yup. > > Your argument seems to be “I want to plunder the remaining IPv4 at the NCC > because I don’t want to buy addreses on the secondary market”. Well, that’s > simply not a good enough reason to change the current policy. That approach > may well be good for you and your business but it’s not good for the > community as a whole. Tragedy of the commons and all that… > > I think the lukewarm reception to my thought experiment also shows that the agenda isn't about solving any real problems with the restrictions under the last /8 policy, but actually _is_ about plundering the remaining IPv4 space. It's therefore been a bit amusing and sad to see how this proposal is so eagerly supported by some of the list participants. Well, I cannot say that I've been swayed away from opposing the proposal. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151117/4422bf0c/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]