[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

[Noah]

On 26 Jul 2017 12:23 a.m., "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:


Yes, I oppose soft landing proposals because they are fundamentally flawed
and I believe that extending the life of IPv4 artificially for some by
denying it to others,



How about the IPv4 transfer market?

Doesn't it also extend the life of IPv4 artificially?


especially in the case of holding it for unknown future users to the
detriment of those with immediate and present need is both bad resource
management and also fosters an errant perception that an extended life for
IPv4 is possible



The IPv4 transfer market is already making that IPv4 future possible.


and therefore there is no need to implement IPv6 or that delaying IPv6
implementation is harmless and risk free.


This has nothing to do with IPv6 but everything to do with IPv$.



I do find it interesting that amidst all of the opposition to Soft Landing
proposals, you have chosen to promote me to chief opposer (is that a real
title?)

I’m not sure what gives you the power to appoint me to such a position, but
I suppose if there needs to be one, then I am perfectly willing to fulfill
the role as required in the face of such a fundamentally bad proposal.



You have since ceased from being the chief opposer of solflanding policies
and I now give that title to our good friend Andrew :-)

Andrew takes the title now because he doesnt believe in any form of
softlanding policy amendment beyond the status quo even though he authored
a softlanding-overhaul policy proposal and then went on to withdraw it.

Cheers,
Noah
-----
Evolve or Extinct. Enable IPv6 Now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170726/cfb47d05/attachment.html>