On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jim Reid <[email protected]> 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
