Re: [address-policy-wg] IXP peering lan reachability

2017-10-24 Thread Rob Evans
> I'd politely suggest that this is an area that the RIPE NCC should not > get involved in, especially from the point of view of implicitly issuing > recommended practice by implying that there is a problem with doing > this. The IXP associations are better placed to gather consensus for >

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

2017-09-22 Thread Rob Evans
Hi all, I think it’s worth remembering that there is a time lag between policies being implemented and them having an effect on the market. Forgive me if I go into a bit of speculation, but where would we be if RIRs hadn’t implemented a “last /8” policy? The RIPE NCC’s coffers would almost

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-10-19 Thread Rob Evans
> Yes, start praising people if that's the purpose of this list. Hitler was > also a very praised man. Godwin! Rob

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

2016-04-22 Thread Rob Evans
Hi, > I do understand that. I just do not agree with the "as long as possible, > no matter what" approach. > For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the > solution is not working yet" situation. > Pain management. The only solution right now is pain suppressors. Some >