On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:48:06 +0200 (MEST), "Thor-Henrik Kvandahl" <thk@telenor.net> said:
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.
I agree with the above. The only one I've heard arguing heavily in favor of the HD-ratio proposal was a representative for a large international backbone who saw this as an opportunity to compensate for bad internal distribution of assigned address-blocks. I don't think any-body's inability to come up with a decent network design is a reason to accept such changes to the 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".
Does this mean that ETNO assume they have some form of veto in the RIPE community? I can't see any reason why ETNO's vote should count for more than any other _individual's_ opinion regardless of who they claim to represent. //per -- Per Heldal http://heldal.eml.cc/