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] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
LeaderTelecom B.V.
info at leadertelecom.nl
Sun Oct 14 14:44:52 CEST 2012
Dear Sander, > But exactly the same can happen with sub-allocated address space. Why would > transfers be any different? At least with a transfer you can show that the > responsibility for those addresses was (temporarily) transferred to another > organisation. With sub-allocated addresses the responsibility remains with the > original holder, who would then probably even have a bigger problem explaining > everything and getting off the spam lists. > This seems to be an argument *in favour* of using temporary transfers... It is very difficult discuss with black lists delisting. Some of black lists can ignore requests. It is better prevent blacklisting. If I understund well policy of transfers - minimal term of transfer - 2 years. It is too long too. I understund that it is normail for EU, but for Russia most of agreement usualy for 1 year. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. Team URL: [1]http://www.LeaderTelecom.nl/ - IP- addresses URL: [2]http://www.GetWildcard.com/nl - WildCard SSL certificates 14.10.2012 16:23 - Sander Steffann написал(а): Hi, > > > Permanenent transfer cost [...] > > > Please remember that the current transfer policy explicitly states "This > > re-allocation may be on either a permanent or non-permanent basis." so you can > > already use the current transfer policy for temporary transfers. > > After temporary transfer you can receive back IPs which listed in Spamhouse. I don't know any company which will temporary transfers IPs. But exactly the same can happen with sub-allocated address space. Why would transfers be any different? At least with a transfer you can show that the responsibility for those addresses was (temporarily) transferred to another organisation. With sub-allocated addresses the responsibility remains with the original holder, who would then probably even have a bigger problem explaining everything and getting off the spam lists. This seems to be an argument *in favour* of using temporary transfers... Sander [1] http://www.leadertelecom.nl/ [2] http://www.GetWildcard.com/nl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20121014/b4a0f5e8/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]