[address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Agree with AS numbers. There should not be any limit.

Yuri


On 19.10.2016 13:36, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> I totally agree with the AS number situation. When I worked for RCS&RDS
> we acquired many companies and although we kept some AS numbers, it
> really makes no sense in putting a 24 months lock on them.
> 
> Ciprian
> 
> On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Plesa Niculae <niculae at plesa.ro
> <mailto:niculae at plesa.ro>> wrote:
> 
>     Dear colleagues,
> 
>     Regarding the [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact
>     Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies):
> 
>     The supposed purpose of the policy was to organise more efficiently,
>     in a single document, the rules regarding transfer of resources but
>     it brings a restriction which has not been properly analysed and
>     debated. In my opinion there are many cases when two ISPs would
>     merge. Due to the restructuring after the merger it is likely that
>     the IPs could be used more efficiently and the resulting company
>     would have spare resources that could be transferred like one of the
>     AS numbers and maybe some IPs. If both companies have received the
>     IPs and AS numbers many years ago, why should they not be able to
>     transfer the resulting unused resources after the merger ? There is
>     no logical point in that. Maybe there would not result some unused
>     IPs but at least there is a 100% certainty that one of the AS
>     numbers would become useless. This policy would force the company to
>     keep it for 24 months just because they did a merger ? In today’s
>     market it's quite common that smaller ISPs get acquired by larger
>     ones and the policy would impose some restrictions which makes no sense.
> 
>     I have more observations regarding other non-sense and incorrect
>     terms of the proposed policy, but first I really want to see if
>     Marco, together with the RIPE team, really want to discuss and make
>     modifications according the general good and common sense or
>     everybody wants to pass this policy, like most of them, with no real
>     answers to the problems raised. We will pass this policy in fanfare
>     sounds, without any modifications, like the most of the past ones,
>     or we will look seriously at members observations and change the
>     policy accordingly?
> 
>     Best Regards
>     Niculae Plesa
> 
> 
>