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] 2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
James Blessing
james.blessing at despres.co.uk
Thu May 10 17:14:56 CEST 2012
On 10 May 2012 14:39, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled at gmail.com> wrote: > If I understand the rationale correctly, the change essentially means that a > LIR has more time to actually implement a use of a transferred block, than > they have for a new block. > > I am a n00b at these matters, but I don't quite see why this is an important > change, and why as much as 24 months is necessary. 24 months was the original time-period for networks to show their networking requirements before the run-out fairly proposals were introduced and it was an attempt to return to those number for transfers rather than have lots of little ones... J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]