[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management

[Owen DeLong]

> > like this one:
> > % Information related to '2001:43f8:1d0::/48'
> >
> > % No abuse contact registered for 2001:43f8:1d0::/48
> >
> > inet6num:       2001:43f8:1d0::/48
> > netname:        WACREN-v6
> >
> > frank at SNET-SNH-DC-P1> show route table inet6.0 2001:43f8:1d0::/48
> >
> > frank at SNET-SNH-DC-P1>
> >
> > route-views6.routeviews.org <http://route-views6.routeviews.org/>> sh bgp ipv6 2001:43f8:1d0::/48
> > % Network not in table
> > route-views6.routeviews.org <http://route-views6.routeviews.org/>>
> >
> > sorry to bring facts into this discussion.
> >
> 
> I am sure wacren has their own reasons as to why some of that v6 is not lit. 
> 
> But lets not use that as the basis to prove a point. 
> 
Interesting, so when you are casting stones at the ARIN region for addresses you assume are not in use because they are not advertised, it is relevant, but when someone makes the exact same point in a way that reflects poorly on you, then it becomes something that should not be used to prove a point.

This is a very interesting double standard you have brought to this discussion.
> What is more important at least imho is the policies under discussion.
> 
I would actually agree, but you were the one who started this exercise. Do not turn around and criticize it when it backfires.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161108/1c88e79f/attachment.html>