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] Guidance Requested: Changing the Status of PI Address Space
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Guidance Requested: Changing the Status of PI Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Guidance Requested: Changing the Status of PI Address Space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Mon Jun 24 13:15:10 CEST 2013
James Blessing wrote: > On 20 June 2013 08:49, andrea <andrea at ripe.net> wrote: > > >>A. Allow LIRs to change the status of their PI assignments to PA allocations > > > This > > >>(if equal or larger than the minimum allocation size) > > > but this makes no sense, since the object already exists in the db > (and routing table) why restrict it? I soemwhat lost track about the RIPE Region's Address Transfer Policy (proposal/s), so please bear with me. IMHO we SHOULD try to remove insconsistencies and special cases in the various policies and their interpretation. Thus: if there is (or will be) a (lower) limit in a/the Transfer Policy, then the same SHOULD apply in moving blocks from PI to PA. OTOH, if the community agrees and lifting size restrictions, then this should be done consistently across the board. > J > -- > > James Blessing > 07989 039 476 Wilfried.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Guidance Requested: Changing the Status of PI Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Guidance Requested: Changing the Status of PI Address Space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]