Hi, Gert Doering schrieb:
Hi everybody,
I have asked Filiz to extend the discussion period for this proposal, because there have been *no* comments in the last round - but the proposal itself was changed, and as such, I can't just declare "consensus" or "no consensus" here.
that's the whole problem with this "democracy" thing :-) Existing Allocation holders might not care anymore, others might not read the relevant mailinglists/webpages <...> (and some get bored of the lenghtly PDP ...)
Please give us your input on whether you think the proposal *as written right now* is a good thing to have.
*** VOTE *** If it comes to a vote: This is a *YES* for the vote-counter, as written right now. *** VOTE *** I supported the key point of the proposal (getting rid of some no longer needed obstacles for LIRs who want to get an IPv6 Allocation) from the start, so the changes are fine with me. I don't think there are any relevant downsides like (relevant) routing table growth -> i don't see _any_ downsides from the main changes. What i won't do now is commenting on minor wording issues; i want this proposal to be passed, NOW, not to continue some more years with some more versions of the draft. I think this can be dealt with in a follow-up proposal if really needed in this case. The main points are fine. (BTW: This is not a personal issue, i have all my IPv6 Allocations already :-) I just want to get this done for the sake of IPv6 distribution since we're discussing about that for ages now!) -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================