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] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Tue Sep 1 20:31:27 CEST 2015
On 31/08/2015 23:18, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > Can't have it both ways ;p As for myself, I would like to see > some clarification on this myself. have cake, eat cake. As you point out, I changed my mind mid-email. It happens. >> asn transfer policy: added "scarce resources ... cannot be transferred by >> the resource holder within 24 months". I don't disagree with this, nor >> with the genericisation of this transfer restriction. > > I do (disagree). IMO this should be a separate policy change, not > something to be hidden in a huge re-work. The only thing that's changing is that asn16s are now be included in the 24m restriction. IPv4 addresses are already there. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]