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] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Correction: Final Minutes Re: DRAFT(?) RIPE 64 APWG Session Minutes
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com
Wed Oct 3 08:19:41 CEST 2012
Good morning, * LeaderTelecom B.V. >> So there will not be any requirement whatsoever on the receiving ISP to >> justify their need for the received block, in the way they would have if >> they had gone through a full transfer instead? > > Correct. Why not? I question the wisdom of abolishing the need-based mechanism for sub-allocations exclusively, when (to the best of my knowledge) all other mechanisms to obtain number resources in all other regions are need-based. > Just see how many transfers in other RIRs. This mechanism work not very good > for now. How come? In any case, if the transfer policy is broken somehow, why not fix it? Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Correction: Final Minutes Re: DRAFT(?) RIPE 64 APWG Session Minutes
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]