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] [Ticket#2014081101013263] Transfer from last /8
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014081101013263] Transfer from last /8
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014081101013263] Transfer from last /8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sergey Myasoedov
sergey at devnull.ru
Mon Aug 11 19:57:58 CEST 2014
Aleksei, I am able to read the written text :) but I don’t see the reason for your proposal. Do you consider unfair single (at least in first 2 years) allocation transfer? Why? Or maybe you would like to limit the practice when companies being created for requesting allocation only? -- Sergey On 11 Aug 2014, at 18:09, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info at leadertelecom.ru> wrote: > Sergey, > > > what is the point of your proposal? > I propose don't allow transfers from last /8 during first 2 years afer date of allocation from RIPE NCC pool. > > Example: some LIR get IPv4 from last /8 at 11.08.2014. In period 11.08.2014 - 10.08.2016 transfer of it's IPs are not allowed. Since 11.08.2016 this LIR can transfer IPv4 to any LIR. > > -- > Aleksei > > LL> Dear Sirs, > > LL> I suggest to allow transfer from the last /8 only in 2 years after date of > LL> allocation from RIPE NCC. I see in the transfer list that this is already > LL> common practice to transfer /22 from the last /8. > LL> Any Pros/cons? > > LL> -- > LL> Aleksei Ivanov > LL> LeaderTelecom > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014081101013263] Transfer from last /8
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014081101013263] Transfer from last /8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]