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
Tue Jul 16 10:27:18 CEST 2019
Hi Tore, El 15/7/19 14:02, "Tore Anderson" <tore at fud.no> escribió: * JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > -> Because I think when there is an unfair situation (some folks bound to rules/policies, others not), there is a problem. ... > -> Because is not subjected to the same rules (policies) as the non-legacy one. That's unfair. Thank you for clarifying. I don't believe this «unfairness» rationale had been mentioned before. Others have explained how the legacy resources were given out with no RIR policy strings attached. You could make the opposite argument too, i.e., that it would be unfair behaviour by the RIPE community to try and retroactively annex legacy space in this way by unilaterally applying terms and conditions that were never agreed to in the first place. -> We agree here. It may be considered unfair in one direction or the other one. It depends on the perspective. In any case, and to be perfectly honest, this rationale reads to like petty jealousy to me - «I can't do X with my RIPE ALLOCATED PA, so I don't want others to be able to do X either». -> I don't have resources of any type (legacy neither non-legacy) in any RIR, so my view is trying to be as objective as possible and looking for the fairness of the more global community. I don't believe this kind of policy making is good for the community. I suspect the opposite is true, by turning legacy holders off from engaging with us. Keep in mind that they are under no obligation to do so. -> I guess it is not still clear enoght. This doesn't affect legacy holders. It is only affecting the resources once they got transferred. A more positive way to approach this perceived unfairness would be to focus on what X is, and see if the RIPE policy can be changed to permit it. Tore ********************************************** 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 ]