[ppml] [Spam] Re: FW: No transfer policies are needed

Robert Seastrom wrote:

>	Have you an alternative scheme to put forward, or are you simply
against the one that has been proposed?  You would not be alone if you
advocated doing nothing at all and simply allowing the address space
to run out...

I don't have a strong advocacy since I am just beginning to understand
arguments on both sides of this issue. However I confess that my background
is in the telephone business where it is routine for numbers to be recycled
and for digits to be added to the addressing scheme when necessary. So from
that frame of reference, I want to understand why it might be advantageous
to spend money trading in v4 addresses as opposed to spending for v6
transition or adding v6 capability. I am not well informed but maybe the
costs are not comparable?

Nigel Cassimire
Telecommunications Specialist (Consultant)
 
Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU)

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:rs at seastrom.com] On Behalf Of Robert E.
Seastrom
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 2:51 PM
To: Nigel Cassimire
Cc: 'Edward Lewis'; ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] [Spam] Re: FW: No transfer policies are needed


"Nigel Cassimire" <nigel.cassimire at ctu.int> writes:

> I also favour avoiding "...putting currency units on numbering
resources..."

Have you an alternative scheme to put forward, or are you simply
against the one that has been proposed?  You would not be alone if you
advocated doing nothing at all and simply allowing the address space
to run out...

                                        ---rob