Jeroen, As usually, you're trying confuse folks, manipulate words and read the text with your own thinking, not what is actually in the email text.
I'm not going to spend too much time on this, just clarify for the benefit of others. Current proposals for PI aren't /32, as you know very well, as you discussed about those proposals in the RIPE NCC address policy WG. And read twice my text, which was only with a clarification purpose about something wrong in the thread: "I'm not saying that this is related to ULA-C, I still believe it should be kept separated, and ULA-C is NOT to be used as a replacement of PA/PI, ...". So if you want to manipulate text, please, do with your own emails, not with clarifications from others. Regards, Jordi > De: Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Organización: Unfix > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:09:06 +0100 > Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: <[email protected]> > Asunto: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt > > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> This is not correct. PI is not available from 2 RIRs, and there is not a >> clear view of when it will become available. In one of them, because the >> timing of the Policy Development Process, it will take at least 15 months to >> get it implemented and this in the case it is approved in the next meeting >> in almost one year from now. > > In other words you are trying to get "ULA PI" because the RIR policies > take too long? You do realize that the ULA policies will have to also go > through the same RIR communities and that they will be handled with the > same skepticism as that those "PI" proposals (which allow a single > end-user site to get a /32, which is really laughable) are being dealt with. > >> In the other one, even PA is not available unless you have 200 customers >> (this is the same in other RIRs that already have PI). > > The IETF is not the place to discuss RIR policies. If the people who > want to force through the new policies made up policies which actually > made any sense and where fair to everybody then they would have been > accepted already. > > With the current views on ULA (lets see how the next update of the draft > will be) it is nothing more than just another variant of PI with a very > weak attempt to avoid RIR policies, nothing else. > > If you really want to have "PI" in those RIR regions then come up with a > good policy proposal on the RIR list, don't try to push it through. That > is not how consensus works. > > Greets, > Jeroen > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
