On 29/08/2012 17:09, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
As much as it would appear fun and amusing to make il.iucc into a punching bag for RIPE NCC legacy policy
Hank, I'm surprised and saddened that you think that I intended to poke fun at IUCC or turn it into a punching bag. This was genuinely not my intention and I think I made this clear in previous emails: "I'm not fishing for answers to these specific questions, btw. I'm interested in the general issue"... and: "I'm not trying to be confrontational here. There's an important issue which I'm trying to get to the bottom of, namely the issue of where the rights and responsibilities lie between the address assignees and their historical registrars." If I've offended you or cause offence to IUCC or its members by using your good name as an example, please accept my sincere and unconditional apologies. My intention was solely to discover, not to offend.
in addition to ideas stated here to take away our legacy IP allocations and give us /22s and force us to use NAT and reengineer our 10,000 node university networks
No idea where this idea came from. No-one has ever suggested this or even remotely implied it. Quite the opposite in fact.
I think I will stop posting here and await to see what general policy is accepted by RIPE NCC for legacy IP space.
Please don't. Your contributions are valuable. Nick