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 Proposal Accepted and Implemented?(Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented?(Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Sun Jul 26 08:41:31 CEST 2015
* Gert Doering > (Funny that people didn't complain when we changed the IPv6 allocation > policy to permit /35 holders to extend their existing allocation to a /32 > "just by asking for it" - *that* was a retroactive change of policy...) Indeed. Or when we allowed transfers in the first place. Or when we allowed LIRs to make end-user assignments without filling in forms. Or when we further extended the /32 to /29 to accomodate for 6RD. Or when we allowed people to register any number of end-user assignments as a single AGGREGATED-BY-LIR object. Or... Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented?(Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]