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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2008-07 Discussion Period extended until 24 August 2009 (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-07 Discussion Period extended until 24 August 2009 (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Philip Smith
pfs at cisco.com
Wed Jul 29 16:29:44 CEST 2009
Hi Larisa, Larisa A. Yurkina said the following on 29/7/09 19:30 : > On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Philip Smith wrote: > >> I don't see where the proposed policy says that customers who received >> pre-rir address space from you have to now fill in ripe-381 style forms. >> Can you point me to the text? >> > "When requesting an additional allocation, an LIR will be asked about > the utilisation and documentation of all address resources they hold, > not just those they have received from the RIPE NCC (this includes > pre-RIR registrations)." I don't see where this says that ripe-381 style forms have to be filled in. My goal is to agree on the principle that LIRs have to document utilisation of all address resources they hold; policy proposals, in my experience, don't direct the RIPE NCC on how to implement them. > You include pre-rir registrations into procedure of getting additional > allocation for LIR. > Ripe-471 says: > "Additional address space will only be allocated after the information > supplied with the request has been verified and a new allocation deemed > necessary." Seems fair. > What kind of information you must supply? Please see the standard hm > questionnaire: As per above, I feel this is an implementation detail, not a problem with the policy itself. > Which is not a problem for your recent assignements documentation > you have to keep according policy. But it can cause problems > for some 15 years-old assignements. How you motivate old customers to > provide inform like that? Just because you need a new allocation? If we wish to talk about implementation details (rather than the policy itself), the way I'd motivate old customers is check and confirm with them what they are using, and whatever they are not using (i.e. not announcing to me or anyone else), I assume they are not using and therefore is free. As I described in my last e-mail. But isn't this really up to the RIPE NCC Secretariat to sort out at the implementation phase if this proposal is adopted... Best wishes, philip --
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-07 Discussion Period extended until 24 August 2009 (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]