[ppml] Buying time...

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> The IPv4 runout date has been artifically advanced by past practices
> that artifically accellerated the consumption of IPv4.  At one time
> you could get a /8 by just e-mailing someone and they wrote it down in
> their black book.  And a lot of people did.  

This is not true. You had to have a big network that was being converted
to IP or you had to be building a big IP network, in order to get that
/8. Few companies were in that position, therefore few /8s were handed
out. The economic factors are outside of IP adressing policy, but the
policy does leverage them to avoid making policies that are
unneccessary.

> I find your position to be extremely inconsistent. 

That's politics. Deal with it. Either your understanding is flawed or
the other person is exercising their right to be inconsistent.

> "I've spent money and time on a crash course to prepare for 
> IPv6 and by
> God I'm going to make all the rest of you &*ck* spend the 
> same money and
> time preparing as I had to do so"

You'll win more flies with honey than with vinegar.

> In a way, those prepared for IPv6 who are arguing about IPv4 
> runout date
> are equivalent to a bunch of men sitting around arguing about 
> abortion.
> It's nothing that will ever happen to them, so not a one of 
> them have any
> place in the discussion, and the people who it does affect 
> would all be
> better off if they would just get the hell out.

ARIN's public policy mailing list is open to all, not just to the people
that you want to have in the discussion. In order to make a wise and
balanced policy we need to see a variety of viewpoints. But we don't
need to insult our opponents. We don't need to cuss and swear. And we
don't need people who engage in these behaviors to be part of the
discussion.

--Michael Dillon