Re: [sig-policy] Fwd: Re: [nznog] Prop 94

To: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Fwd: Re: [nznog] Prop 94
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead dot org>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:52:35 +0000
Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <m2ipwj6lnb.wl%randy at psg dot com>
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <4D48D1C6.6000407@lpnz.org> <1297931105.3011.15.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <m2oc6b6mqd.wl%randy@psg.com> <1297935783.19783.4.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <m2ipwj6lnb.wl%randy@psg.com>

> > Any organisation which is deploying more Legacy IP even now, without
> > having deployed IPv6 yet, is clearly failing to fulfil that duty.
> 
> then we should take away all their ipv4 space

Another fine plan, but I fear that some may feel it a little excessive.

How about we just refrain from giving them any *more*, since they
clearly aren't going to make good use of it, and they're only going to
use it to prolong their fantasies about Legacy IP being sufficient.

-- 
dwmw2