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] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-06 New Policy Proposal (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Wed Sep 5 12:04:02 CEST 2012
[this comment is made with my view as a LIR manager] Milton L Mueller wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >> >>Besides publishing a list of v4 resources that have been moved, > > > That is the sum and substance of what 2012-05 is intended to do. > It does what ARIN and APNIC already do: provide an accessible list of resources that have been moved according to the transfer policies in place. > > >>what does this accomplish that sub-allocations don't already do? >>Is the recipient LIR charged according to the resources under their >>registry file? > > > Like the previous question that was raised, you seem to be asking questions > about the transfer policy itself, not about this proposal. The transfer policy > already exists and it is what it is. Each and every existing policy is subject to review, change and/or improvement. Thus, when there is a proposal to amend existing policy text, this might be a good point in time to have a look at the whole set of provisions. With that point of view I'd like to ask for clarification of the following provision: " LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR cannot re-allocate complete or partial blocks of the same address space to another LIR within 24 months of receiving the re-allocation. " But the receiving LIR may do so with other parts from their IPv4 address pool? What is the motivation for that particular restriction and for that particular wording? And, I am wondering, whether the following restriction is (still) useful: " The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum allocation block size at the time of re-allocation. " in particular at a point in time when Registration Services has distributed the following announcement (Sept. 4, 2012 [1] ): - Depending on the availability in the RIPE NCC’s free pool of IPv4 address space, you may receive multiple smaller prefixes that add up to the size of your request. > All this proposal does it let the community know who is using it, and to better > assess and track its consequences. > > --MM Wwilfried [1] Subject: RIPE NCC has Approximately Four Million IPv4 Addresses Before Reaching Last /8
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-06 New Policy Proposal (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]