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] Splitting 2015-05 in two
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Splitting 2015-05 in two
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] agreement
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Sat May 14 11:27:32 CEST 2016
On Sat, May 14, 2016, at 10:16, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > This seems like putting the cart before the horse. > > Allocation conditions should be introduced _first_, as a "part A". Ok, got it, I messed the order. Sill, the question remains on what is the scope of "Part A" (condition for allocation) ? For old LIRs (that got an allocation before 14/09/2012), that shouldn't be a problem unless community decides otherwise The question is for new LIRs : how can you ask them to fulfill the conditions when they never had anything (nada, zero, LIR just opened) in the first place ? - ask them to start deployment using somebody else's space (ASSIGNED PA from transit, leased space) ? - lease them the block for X months/years (trial period) than take it back if at the end of trial period the condition is not met ? - keep the current status for them, which pretty much voids the purpose of the condition ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Splitting 2015-05 in two
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] agreement
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]