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] 2015-05
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ciprian Nica
office at ip-broker.uk
Wed Oct 21 15:18:44 CEST 2015
Assignments are between LIR and end user and at this moment RIPE doesn't care much about them, only, as you mentioned, that they are properly reflected in the registry. If there were a policy already allowing RIPE to get back allocations, I think the situation would have been different (I can't stop thinking about my chinese "friend") Maybe it is time to create such policy. It will not be easy but maybe we are able to come up with some rules that NCC can implement and get back some of the space that we all know it's just waiting for a better price. Ciprian On 10/21/2015 4:06 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 02:51:58PM +0200, Netskin NOC wrote: >> Unused space has to be returned to the registry for free, as the initial >> requirements for the assignment are no longer met. > > These are *allocations* and not assignments, and there has never been such > a policy for allocations. Repeat: there is no policy that mandates return > of unused allocations, and no mandate from the community for the NCC to go > out and pester allocation holders to voluntarily return anything. > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]