[ppml] Policy without consensus?

Lea Roberts lea.roberts at stanford.edu
Mon Jan 23 18:11:37 EST 2006

so do you gentlemen believe that we should allow unlimited allocation of
IPv6 PI space to whomever wants to multihome and just consider the
possible routing table scaling problems to be something that will be
dealt with later?  and you also don't worry about carrying over the "IPv4
early adopter bonus" into the brave new IPv6 world?  assuming of course
that the policy might have to be more restrictive later?

				just curious,  		/Lea

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:

>       On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Howard, W. Lee wrote:
>     > > Well, the last PP 2005-1 was completely unworkable. I
>     > > supported it because
>     > > it was better than nothing - but only barely. (Many) People
>     > > who voted for it
>     > > were holding their noses and voting yes in the hope of
>     > > improving it later.
> Yup, that's certainly true of me, and of everyone else I know who voted
> for it.  It wasn't acceptable as voted, but there was nothing else on the
> table, and nothing else we could vote for.  Yes, that's a really major
> problem.
>     > That puts us in a difficult position.  The process says we can
>     > only ratify a policy is there is evidence of consensus.  The
>     > only exception would be in case of an emergency, and I think
>     > we're a couple of years from an emergency.
> I think we're a couple of years into an emergency.
>                                 -Bill
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list