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 ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Sun Jul 14 22:57:07 CEST 2019
hi carlos, > My understanding (and i'm not a lawyer, so i won't risk any comments > about liability) is that the RIPE NCC can't force anything to a Legacy > Resource Holder, outside the established contract for services > provision. That one, also states the possibility for the RIPE NCC to > stop providing said services -- but this doesn't mean > de-registering. In practice, it means no access to the Certification > service. Not sure about reverse DNS, though... the actual paperwork does, well did two months ago, include an *option* for the ncc to stop providing reverse dns. i suspect they would not exercise the option except in egregious circumstances. randy
- 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 ]