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 ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Mon Jul 22 15:51:16 CEST 2019
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 03:26:34PM +0200, Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg wrote: >> >> Except when those other policies detract from the main one. If we can't maintain an accurate registry, then what's the point? > >IMHO, this is not the case here. Let's try not to fall in the false >dilemma here. But it is the case... AFAICT, the only "sanction" a RIR has available for any party trading in legacy resources (and refusing to comply with orders to "hand them over") is to refuse to provide registry service for those. That won't stop transfers but will lead to those resources become unregistered or, even worse, incorrectly registered. rgds, Sascha Luck
- 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 ]