From: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Wilhelm Boeddinghaus Sent: 12. marraskuuta 2014 11:26 To: Aleksi Suhonen; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]

 

Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen:

Hello,

On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote:

Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal IP address is the day we really in a world of v6.

In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support this proposal.

Hi,

I do not support this proposal. Renaming the WG to "resource-policy" would be ok, but this is not the important point. The "address-policy" WG deals with how we give IP  adresses to members and non members, it is about contracts and fair distribution of resources in a fairly large region.

In the IPv6 working group we deal with the technical aspects of IPv6, just have a look at the presentation Jen Linkova gave in London. Or have a look into the drafts of the IPv6 working groups at the IETF. There is still a lot of research going on. And many organisations just start with IPv6. Learning from others is very valuable. These aspects would not be addressed in a "resource-policy" WG.

I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today.

Regards,

Wilhelm

Hi all, I fully agree with Wilhelm. Rgds, Ray