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] 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 11:29:22 CEST 2019
Hi Gert, Just to be clear: I didn't change this in any RIR. I've proposed Inter-RIR transfers in LACNIC and AFRINIC, following their existing intra-RIR policies, which already had this legacy to non-legacy with the transfer, so I just kept it. I still think it is unfair to have a legacy status, and for me this is a good reason. As Jim said, it is about diversity, in this case of opinions. I'm going to investigate the reasons to have this in the other RIRs and come back to the list. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 16/7/19 10:46, "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 Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:29:28AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > Again, please consider, if it is good that we are the only RIR not doing so. I don't think that's good. If this is the main argument ("I changed this in all the other RIRs, and now *you* are the only ones stubbornly refusing to follow my all-the-others-are-doing-this argument") - it's a somewhat weak one. You have failed to bring forward any reason for changing things, except "it is unfair that there is a difference" (without detailing what exactly the unfairness would be, who would be disadvantaged by this, exactly, and why they would be affected positively by this proposal) - and "all the other RIRs have changed this!" which is both not very compelling. I could also not see anyone speak up in a supportive way, so I'd consider this "sufficiently discussed, and no support to go for a formal proposal". Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- 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 ]