Anna, all,
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 01:56:13PM +0100, Anna Wilson wrote:
> It's not an unreasonable effect to hope for. But the current /8 policy is
> already quite restrictive. I would be surprised if full runout would have a
> much greater effect on existing IPv4 holders. And even if that
Hi Gert,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:04:33AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further changes
> to the IPv4 policy - the "new LIR" folks here are accting in a fairly
I'd hope you're at least half kidding here. While I'd agree that
> This is
Remco,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:14:08PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote:
> I would encourage everyone to carefully read this second version (and not
> just respond "no, still hate it, kill it with fire") as it is quite different
> from the first version.
I have read version 2, also in
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 07:00:53PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> [X] I think we should be organizing this differently, and totally not
> group the policy documents "by activity" but "by resource" (= transfer
> policy section in the IPv4, IPv6 and AS number policy documents)
while I
