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] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com
Wed Sep 5 12:16:00 CEST 2012
* Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > 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. I disagree. > " > 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. > " > " > The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum > allocation block size at the time of re-allocation. > " Your questions are off topic, as both of those sentences you quoated are not modified in any way by 2012-05. You are of course free to start a new discussion about them, submit a new proposal to change them, and so forth. But please, don't hijack the 2012-05 thread. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]