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 15:35:02 CEST 2015
This would make an important change to the current situation and we should think it very thorough. In less than a month it's RIPE 71 in Bucharest. Let's discuss this further on the mailing list and at RIPE71 and if there's support for the idea, we'll collect your opinions and come up with a feasible proposal. Ciprian On 10/21/2015 4:25 PM, Netskin NOC wrote: > Am 21.10.2015 um 15:06 schrieb Gert Doering: >> >> 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. >> > > Sorry, if I mixed it up. I really think it's time for such a policy then. > > Corin >
- 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 ]