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] Support for 2016-03 v2.0
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Support for 2016-03 v2.0
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Support for 2016-03 v2.0
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
NTX NOC
noc at ntx.ru
Sat Jun 18 23:41:34 CEST 2016
+1 On 19.06.2016 0:38, Daniel Suchy wrote: > Do we really want do block new organisations with new allocations, but > allow old (happy) one to do anything with addresses tehy have...? That's > not fair. +1 >There're organisations, which have large allocations and they're >sometimes not taking care - they have enough IPv4 addresses, nothing is >pushing them to implement IPv6, or save address space by implementation >of some NAT solution. If they decide to sell their business, policy will >allow that - but, if "new" resource holder will try similar thing, >policy will ban then? Yuri at NTX
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Support for 2016-03 v2.0
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Support for 2016-03 v2.0
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]