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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 Proposal Accepted (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jens Ott - Opteamax GmbH
ripe at opteamax.de
Fri Oct 2 11:17:19 CEST 2015
Hi, I'd like to put another idea into this policy, as I just ran into this issue. But before proposing it, I want to point out that I really like the 24 month hold-period before transfer in general to reduce the effect of "Create LIR - get /22 - sell /22 - close LIR". Still I would like to propose an exception to this 24month hold period for the case of "swapping" IP-Space: Here the issue I have. My LIR leased our last /22 to a transit customer. This transit customer is now being taken over by another LIR. This LIR does not want to renumber the end-users, but also does not want to lease the IPs anymore. Therefore this LIR proposed to request his last /22 and transfer it to us and at the same time we transfer our /22 to his LIR. So far - so good, but this is not working with current policy-text for the next 24 month, as the current policy forces us to wait 24 months before we can do that. In practice this does not make real difference, as we could simply make a contract that I lease his /22 and he leases mine for the next 24 months, but I think this actually doesn't make sense and also has never been the intention of the policy. For this reason I'd like to propose an exception on this 24month period in section 2.2 of the current proposal 2015-04 as follows: "This 24 months period is not needed, if two LIR swap allocations of identical size." What do you think about that? Thanks and best regards Jens Ott PS: @Gert: Did you realize that I signed with full name and also changed the sender's name for writing to the list ... so now there's no more reason to call me Jens 'Opteamax' :D On 14.08.2015 11:54, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" has been > made and is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all > relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 > > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 14 September. > > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > > > !DSPAM:637,55cdbc45319867115668180! > -- Jens Ott Geschäftsführer Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo at opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Geschäftsführer: Jens Ott Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 Proposal Accepted (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]