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] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mozafary Mohammad
mozafary at greenweb.ir
Sat Jun 18 09:44:14 CEST 2016
I'm agree with Arash. On 6/18/2016 9:37 AM, Arash Naderpour wrote: > Hi, > > This policy can affect the members that already received some /22 or smaller > blocks (from 185/8 range) from the market. They already paid to sellers to > obtain those blocks and this policy make it impossible for them to transfer > it out later if they don't need it. > > I'm opposing the policy, it make unnecessary limitation and put a part of > community in an unfair situation. If returning an allocation is something > visible it can be done to any allocation, not just the smallest ones. > > Regards, > > Arash Naderpour > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160618/fd2f2b7b/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]