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] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Chris
chrish at consol.net
Tue Apr 3 13:08:28 CEST 2012
On 04/03/2012 12:40 PM, Sascha Luck wrote: > there is nothing to understand. well... err, probably right, i guess... ;) > I would assume that many (particularly smaller) LIRs are > not using all the allocated space. ...which means that they do not reach the minimum allocation size - and therefore don't get an allocation? i'll stick with my understanding that this is simply 'what you get anyway' (i.e. handled as 'needed by definition')... > I am not aware of the NCC reclaiming unused parts of any allocation. well then: *surprise* :) > while I don't really care about v4 anymore, I oppose it. to get back to the point, yes, i (obviously) oppose 2012-01, too. regards, Chris
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]