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] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Farmer
farmer at umn.edu
Fri Aug 16 20:20:17 CEST 2013
On 8/16/13 09:14 , Gert Doering wrote: > Dear AP WG, > > in the heated discussion about 2013-03 ("no need"), I think this proposal > might have escaped your attention. > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:08:26PM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> A proposed change to RIPE Policy Document ripe-592, "IPv4 Address >> Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", >> is now available for discussion. >> >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05/ > > > This is an amendment to the transfer policy which solves real-world > problems for real-world LIRs - namely: abandon the requirement that a > transferred block of addresses must be empty, because that conflicts > with real-world scenarios, like a customer of a given LIR opening > his own LIR later on, both parties agree to transfer the addresses > the customer uses to the new LIR (= the customer's LIR of the customer > using the addresses already), and the NCC then tells them "no, you > can't do that". > > The proposal is in *discussion* phase, so if you want to discuss, now is > the time. (If you just "+1" it, that's also a clear signal :-) ). > > regards, > > Gert Doering, > APWG chair I support the intent of the proposal, there are situations where it seems reasonable to allow transfers of blocks with end users in them, and the current blanket exclusion prevents this. However, I also support the original intent of the language that would be removed. I believe the intent of the original language was to prevent an LIR selling off a block that has active End Users in it, at least without notice or consent, etc... For the example case given in the proposal, it seems that consent should be readily obtainable. So, would a better solution be to add "without consent of the End User(s)" to the current text. This provides flexibility without abandoning the protection the current text provides to End Users. Thanks. -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]