JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > 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.
Wow, what has this to do with the whole ULA-C debate? Can you actually supply any technical arguments instead of personal insults? Clearly your words are ambiguous otherwise I could not read something else in them now could I? Write a draft about this with clear text, instead of trying to insult me and trying to discredit what I write. There is no intention, at least from my side, of "trying to confuse folks" and there is no need to "manipulate words", what you propose is wrong, and that is where I comment on. As you are clearly accusing me of various bad things here, can you at least exactly point out where I "manipulate words"? As then we can clear those issues up instead of just having you throw rocks at me without any grounds whatsoever. > I'm not going to spend too much time on this, just clarify for the benefit > of others. Thank you for explaining other people what you think on this subject. Can you also provide TECHNICAL arguments and actual facts? > 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. Funny that you apparently know what I "know well", sorry you really don't know how my mind works and neither do others. Weird that you are trying to accuse me of manipulation of words. Amazing. What I very well know is that those proposals do contain the loophole that allow any end user organization to simply request a /32 as there is no claim for justification given in the proposed documents. It is also why several people have stated no support for those proposals. If there was a simple rule of justification then they would have been passed a long time ago. The proposed text though is ambiguous and open for interpretation in too many ways. Also that discussion belongs on the RIR lists though, not here. Go there to accuse me of "manipulating your words". > 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, ...". That you believe that it should not be used for it doesn't mean that it won't be used for it and that is what it is about here. As can be seen very clearly from ris.ripe.net, see my other mail, even RFC1918 is being leaked and routed. As that happens, it will for sure happen for any form of "ULA" that is currently proposed as those are globally unique and it would make sense that they are being routed as that is what people need them for: Alternative PI because one can't get it from the RIR's directly. > So if you want to manipulate text, please, do with your own emails, not with > clarifications from others. Thank you for the insults. The next time you try to do that at least come up with real arguments. Please bring up TECHNICAL arguments and facts for the discussion that we are trying to have here instead of trying to insult members of this list by you not being able/wanting to understand what I am writing. If wordings of what I am writing is unclear, then ask for clarification instead. Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
