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] [policy-announce] 2012-05 New Policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-05 New Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Last 4 Days: GreeNets 2012: October 24-26, 2012 - Gandia, Spain
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Tue Jun 5 15:00:56 CEST 2012
Hello Octavio, > First of all, sorry if this question was already addressed in the past, but I find a gap between the policy proposal and IPv4 market dynamics. > > According to the proposal, transfer would be approved if the receiving LIR fulfills requirements of Section 5.3 Additional Allocations. I personally agree with this requirement, but my doubt is how coherent it is with a real market scenario. A LIR selling an allocation would look for the best offer, regardless of the IPv4 allocation status with respect to Section 5.3 requirements of the purchasing LIR. Which would be the situation of a LIR acquiring IPv4 address blocks but unable to fulfill transfer requirements? Which would be the way to solve this situation? Then the RIPE NCC will not accept the transfer, and the resources will remain allocated to the 'seller'... Met vriendelijke groet, Sander Steffann
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-05 New Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Last 4 Days: GreeNets 2012: October 24-26, 2012 - Gandia, Spain
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]