Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Opposition to AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-01
ipgoddess.arin at gmail.com
Mon Feb 28 21:38:22 UTC 2011
Here we go:
*3.5.2)* Exhaustion Phase 2
During this phase a minimum allocation/assignment size will be /27. And a
maximum of /22 per allocation/assignment.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:21 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear IP Goddess,
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Stacy Hughes <ipgoddess.arin at gmail.com>
> > Esteemed Colleagues,
> > I must speak in opposition to this proposal.
> > First, I am philosophically opposed to soft landing proposals in general.
> > When the party is over, it's time to go home. We don't get 5 more
> > or more birthday cake.
> Have you ever been to a 1st graders birthday party???....they get the
> 5 more minutes AND more cake...I experienced this first hand a few
> days ago ;-/
> Incorporation of and transition to IPv6 is the way
> > forward, and necessary for all of us.
> Full ACK
> > I especially disagree with direct assignments or allocations of IPv4
> > in subnets of longer prefix lengths than /24.
> Does this proposal do that? If so, I must have missed that in this
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD