This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE 51 - Address Policy WG Agenda (Draft)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Thu Oct 6 14:08:56 CEST 2005
Hi, On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:44:32AM +0100, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote: > > The answer is "the RIPE policies have no answers how to do things that > > are in violation of the RIPE policies" - and assigning 10 IPv6 addresses > > > is against the policy. > > Assigning 10 IPv6 addresses is *NOT* against RIPE policy! Please read the policy documents. There is no provisioning for assignment of > It may come as a surprise to those of you who do not speak > English as a native language, but the word "assign" is a > synonym of the word "allocate" and both have a very general > meaning of distributing something to multiple recipients. > The fact that RIR policies use these synonyms in specific and > distinct ways does not change the fact that anyone who learns > English as a language of communication will learn that these > two words mean the same thing and can be substituted for one > another. It may come as a surprise to you, but it's not so unsual to assign very specific meanings to certain terms when being used in certain professional environments. The most important point is to define exactly what the word specifies, and follow the official definitions *of this profession* when discussing details. You can't go to a lawyer either and argue about the fact that some generic terms have different meanings in a lawmaking context. That's the way language works. > Even worse (Horrors!) these two words can be used in business > outside of the context of the RIRs. ISPs can allocate circuit > bandwidth to customers, assign them to router ports, distribute > IP addresses to them, etc. Which has nothing to do whatsoever with the specific and precisely defined words "assignment" an "allocation" in the context IP address distribution. > Inside the business he can certainly assign 10 addresses to > his customer, however the very fact that he is choosing to > allocate the customer 10 addresses shows that he is doing > a private act. Please re-read the policy documents. The IP address distribution policies very specifically specify the rules how address distribution to 3rd parties are to be done, and every LIR signs a document that states "yes, we will follow all agreed-upon policies and procedures". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 81421 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE 51 - Address Policy WG Agenda (Draft)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]