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] 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 ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Sun Oct 14 14:53:03 CEST 2012
Hi, > It is very difficult discuss with black lists delisting. Some of black lists can ignore requests. IMHO blacklist operators should keep an eye on address transfers and adjust their lists accordingly. But what makes you think that abuse complaints will always reach the original holder of the address space and not only the holder of the sub-allocated space? > It is better prevent blacklisting. That is always true :-) > If I understund well policy of transfers - minimal term of transfer - 2 years. No it doesn't. It says that the organisation *receiving* the address space may not transfer it on within 24 months. There are no constraints in the policy about the term for temporary transfers. - Sander
- 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 ]