Hi all. If issues regarding rfc2050 has been discussed before, then please excuse me. I see that ARIN and LACNIC has discussed rfc2050 conflicts in this proposal, but I cannot remember that this topic is discussed in the RIPE region. This proposal breaks the 80% rule in rfc2050. The proposal mentions the 80% rule, but it does not mention or discuss the fact that this rule is stated in rfc 2050. The proposal says: d. Arguments opposing the proposal. This proposal will have some limited impact on IPV4 address consumption. I think conflicts with rfc2050 also should have been listed in the proposal item d. -- Thor-Henrik Kvandahl no.telenor On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Thor-Henrik Kvandahl wrote:
Hi all,
here are my *personal* opinion on this proposal.
I do not support this proposal, and my reasons for this are:
* This proposal increases the rate of consumption of IPv4. * It favourises the large ISPs. * In the presentation on RIPE 52, Tuesday by Filiz Yilmaz, we where told that this proposal was abandoned by ARIN and APNIC, and one representative from LacNIC also stood up and expressed their conserns. I have not heard anything from AfriNIC, but I cannot see why they would want to implement this policy. I feel if will be arrogant of the RIPE community to disregard the other RIRs conserns and implement this policy.
And I also have to agree with Gert Doering who said in the address policy WG that there has been very quiet around this proposal, and that the reason for this can be that ETNO claims thay "unanimously support this proposal".
-- Thor-Henrik Kvandahl no.telenor