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] 2012-02 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Remco Van Mook
Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com
Wed May 9 15:50:22 CEST 2012
Dear Chris, Your objection to the current transfer policy as accepted by the RIPE community is noted. However, I don't think it relates to this policy proposal. If you feel strongly about changing (or removing, for that matter) the current transfer policy, I suggest you launch a separate policy proposal to do just that. Kind regards, Remco van Mook Director of Interconnection, EMEA remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com +31 61 135 6365 MOB EQUINIX 51-53 Great Marlborough Street London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom On 09-05-12 15:29, "chrish at consol.net" <chrish at consol.net> wrote: >hi! > >On 05/09/2012 03:02 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 > >this proposal doesn't fit with the current hierarchical structure of rirs >and lirs. if this hierarchical structure is to be changed, this would be >an essential change. introducing such a change in just a subordinate >procedure isn't the way to go. >i can't see a justification or explanation why the rir/lir hierarchical >structure should be changed. > >furthermore this proposal is incompatible with policy - with the current >one, and as it doesn't change the incompatibilities also with the >proposed changed policy. >i don't think it's reasonable to try to drop the primacy of fair and >according to need distribution of ip-space. > >as the readers of this ml certainly know, the proposed change is actually >meant to facilitate the trade of ips, this way implying (well - trying to >imply) the change to ips as an asset (with a plethora of further adverse >consequences). > >i formally voice strong and sustained opposition. > >i'd suggest that inter-rir transfers simply take the canonical way: from >current lir, back to current lir's rir, to target lir's rir, to the >target lir. > >regards, > > Chris > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]