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 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Tue May 12 15:36:19 CEST 2015
Hi, On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 06:45:31PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > Your interpretation is the same as mine, correct or not ;) The > crux is, though: it changes ripe-623, the "IPv4 Address > Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service > Region" document, not a hypothetical "Transfer Policies" > document. This sets a precedent for changing *everything else* in > this document and applying the changes retrospectively. I can't > be the only one who does not want to go there? Actually, I disagree with your interpretation. Allocation policy is not changed - people will still be able to get new allocations under the same rules, and existing allocations will not be taken away either. Section 5.5 is "Transfer Policy", even if it is contained in the same document as "Allocation Policy" - and it only affects transfers that happen to be after it is implemented, not retroactively. Now, people do get resources with certain assumptions(!) of what they might want to do with them in the future, or what they *can* do with them in the future. Like, "I have this /25 PI space, I can route this on the Internet!". We do not make guarantees that people's assumptions hold. If changing policy to require a holding time breaks the assumption "I can transfer away this block right away" - well, I think this is fully intentional, no? 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150512/610b1786/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]