Re: [sig-policy] prop-091: Limiting of final /8 policy to specific/9
IMTIAZ AHMED
-----Original Message-----
From: "Hannigan, Martin" <marty at akamai dot com>
Sender: "sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net"
<sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:45:35
To: Randy Bush<randy at psg dot com>; David Woodgate<dwoodgate5 at gmail dot com>
Reply-To: "Hannigan, Martin" <marty at akamai dot com>
Cc: APNIC Policy SIG List<sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-091: Limiting of final /8 policy to specific
/9
On 1/22/11 1:44 AM, "Randy Bush" <randy at psg dot com> wrote:
>> The premise of the proposal is:
>> - Users want services now;
>> - Services require IP addresses;
>
> and there ain't gonna be no more. period. get over it.
>
> this is like the loggers in the pacific northwest of the united states
> arguing about the last trees. we should sacrifice the last resources
> that our children may need for one year of jobs for a bunch of fracking
> rednecks. how embarrassingly shortsighted and greedy.
If a purpose arises that requires such a small amount of addresses, why
can't they go to the "markets" like the rest of us will have to? That would
seem to make the RIR greedy more so than the community.
Best,
-M<
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy