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] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Vladimir Andreev
vladimir at quick-soft.net
Thu Apr 23 15:43:06 CEST 2015
Resuming my position is: - Current proposal doesn't aim effect it was created for (/22 receiving is possible, transfer due to merger/acquisition is possible) - Current proposal has not clear reasoning (according to my calculations, exhaustion due to having multiple /22's per LIR is not so serious) - Opening multiple LIR's and having multiple /22 is not abusing (because policies don't contain any statements prohibiting this) So I haven't ANY reason to support this proposal. 23.04.2015, 16:39, "Vladimir Andreev" <vladimir at quick-soft.net>: >> Because the policy says "one /22 per LIR". > > Policy sets this rule only for /22's received from RIPE NCC. > > Indeed, RIPE NCC will not allocate you several /22. I have tested it :) > > The only way is to receive allocations from other LIR (own or belonging to other companies). An such order doesn't abuse any policies. > > If we suppose having multiple /22 per LIR is abusing then main "abuser" is RIPE NCC since RIPE NCC makes transfers and LIR merging allowing to receive second /22 etc. > > 23.04.2015, 16:35, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net>: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 04:22:51PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >>> What from this quotation is? Please give me a link. >>> And what statement exactly of the current policy is abusing? >> Stop turning in circles. This question has been answered before. >>> Also I would like to receive concrete answer to the question: >>> Why using multiple /22's for own company is not abusing but selling is abusing? >> Because the policy says "one /22 per LIR". >> >> Gert Doering >> -- APWG chair >> -- >> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? >> >> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard >> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > > -- > With best regards, Vladimir Andreev > General director, QuickSoft LLC > Tel: +7 903 1750503 -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]