[ppml] 2005-1:Business Need for PI Assignments

[Jeff Williams]

Owen and all,

  Both sides of this issue and/or argument have merit.  On one side
a more conservative and restrictive approach is helpful for longer
term address availability and prevention of wasted allocations.
On the other more liberal side and/or approach preferred by
some, is in part the idea that a more liberal allocation policy will
aid in the migration from Ipv4 to Ipv6 for good or ill.

  It may be that some middle ground is satisfactory to both
entrenched sides of this divide in terms of policy?! Or am I all
wet here?

Owen DeLong wrote:

> MD>> > Not at all. Innovation comes about when traditional ways of doing
> MD>> > things can no longer cope. It has nothing to do with IPv6 address
> MD>> > conservation. If we run out of IPv6 addresses in the year 2105, then
> MD>> > that may spark some innovation.
> >> >
> OD>> So you're saying we should waste addresses today in order to limit the
> OD>> useful live of IPv6 because that will accelerate our development of the
> OD>> next protocol.  Michael, you have a unique way of viewing the world.
> >
> MD> And one of the reasons that I avoid mentioning names in replies is
> MD> because it requires extra work to make sure that I really am replying
> MD> to the train of thought of the named individual. It also leads to
> MD> personal clashes which are not terribly fruitful. Here, you actually
> MD> are quoting something that I wrote on fragmentation, but you are
> MD> slandering
> MD> me as well because this reference to my name again implies that I wrote
> MD> Ed Lewis's words above.
> >
> Michael,
>         It was not my intent to slander you, and, I had no delusion
> that you were responsible for Ed's words.  I think my reply was
> focused entirely on your statement, however, I left Ed's words in
> for context because your words made little sense without them.
>
> MD> It is better to restrict the conversation to ideas and not the
> MD> personalities
> MD> behind them. If you don't like the personalities, then don't reply to
> MD> their
> MD> messages at all. For instance, as a matter of policy, I never reply to
> MD> anything written by Jeff Williams.
> >
>
>         Again, while I mentioned you by name in this case, it was not
> intended as a personal attack.  I know we often disagree, but, I think
> I have always respected you in those disagreements.  I mentioned your
> name only to clarify which portion of the quoted text my reply was
> directed towards.
>
>         Hopefully my attribution clarifications above will address
> your concerns on this message:
>
>         OD = Owen DeLong
>         MD = Michael Dillon
>
>         BTW, as near as I can tell, you didn't address my interpretation
> of your statement.  Can I presume from that, my interpretation was your
> intended meaning?
>
> Owen
>
> --
> If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
> a forgery.
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Part 1.2       Type: application/pgp-signature
>               Encoding: 7bit

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827