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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com
Mon Nov 5 20:18:09 CET 2012
Hi George, * George Giannousopoulos > I agree that the three months limitation has to go.. > However, I also believe that the period for allocations and assignments > should be equal The period for allocation is only relevant for transfers nowadays, as the NCC does not issue needs-based allocations any longer. With that in mind, I'd like to point out that there is another active proposal - 2012-03 - that seeks to increase the transfer allocation period to 24 months, which is the same as the NCC's interpretation (according to the Impact Analysis) of what the new assignment period would be, if this proposal (2012-06) passes. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 In other words, it would seem that you can get both the things you want, by supporting both 2012-06 and 2012-03. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]