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] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Sat Jul 13 14:27:03 CEST 2019
You're right for addresses not being transferred. This is the same in other RIRs if those resources aren't transferred. What I'm suggesting will only be useful for those addresses that want to be transferred (within or to RIPE), but that's still sufficiently useful, in my opinion. If legacy holders, want to transfers those resources and escape from fulfilling the policies and contractual requirements, now they can do it in RIPE, but not in other regions. In my opinion this is bad for RIPE, because it means we may end up having here more and more non-policy/contractual-bound resources than the other regions that have this provision. In only see good thing doing that, and nothing bad, if we as a community want to have as much as possible everybody engaged with the same rules. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 13/7/19 14:21, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert Doering" <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de gert at space.net> escribió: Hi, On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 02:04:11PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > My personal view but looking for the good of the community is that it is better to get rid ASAP of the "legacy" status for as much resources we can, so they are fully part of the policy system. We have no contractual leverance to do anything to "legacy" addresses. These are addresses that were assigned outside the RIR system, so there exists no contracts with any RIR, and no way we can use our policies to make the holders do something "we want them to do". We can entice them to bring their space into the umbrella of RIPE DB documentation (by offering ROAs, for example) - and this is what we do today. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]