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] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Sun Feb 22 21:13:55 CET 2015
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015, at 15:32, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > This policy proposal tries to close the loophole where companies only > request the /22 in order to transfer it immediately using the transfer > policy. If this is random/occasional behavior, this policy may be able to stop or reduce it. If this is regular (or even common) behavior, the policy may not help very much (just push prices up a little). > intention is to make a profit from (ab)using the policy, they can try to > merge the newly created LIR into an existing one using the M&A process/procedure. > This last point is where I want to receive some > further comments/suggestions before deciding how to move forward. Just pay attention not to have a very bad impact on real M&A. Some of them may not fit the "classic" view of a merger/acquisition.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]