<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Hi Sander, <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Il 20/06/2016 23:00, Sander Steffann ha scritto: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:6763C3B8-B19A-479B-9B8F-7C14F86BE365@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Hi Riccardo, </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Teorically not, but practically creates class-b LIRs. I am against speculators but I would not like discrimination between old and new LIRs. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> There is none, please stop repeating that.</pre> </blockquote> I can ask the same If we had a proposal that changes the policy behaviour creating a new fantasy example category "ALLOCATED BEFORE FINAL" to all allocation created before 14/09/2012 this would be discriminating anyone received such kind of allocation from who didn't. Positive or negative discrimination depends on how it will affect such allocation. In all cases would create problems. History repeating. The current policies even in other RIR (i think it, i am not so informed about that and can be wrong) are trying to move over "colors" and not using them to discriminate between allocations. PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE. Why shouldn't be the same for an newly invented "ALLOCATED BEFORE FINAL" or an "ALLOCATED FINAL"? At RIPE meetings Registration Services make an update about the status of the database and there's some slide titeled "IPv4 blocks with status that cause issues" You know what? there's is mentioned ALLOCATED PI, ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED. This means discrimination between allocation creates problem to LIRs. I really don't see any reason to create fantasy colors when at RIPE meetings it has been asked publically to take an effort on moving over it. I invite you to read these from Registration Services update about different colors allocations: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/86-FeedbackRS-RIPE71.pdf">https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/86-FeedbackRS-RIPE71.pdf</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ripe72.ripe.net/presentations/112-FeedbackRS-RIPE72_final.pdf">https://ripe72.ripe.net/presentations/112-FeedbackRS-RIPE72_final.pdf</a> [...] RIPE NCC encourages: - LIRs to strive to convert to ASSIGNED PA “Where possible, LIRs should work to make contractual arrangements to convert PI addresses into PA addresses.” - LIRs to not create new ASSIGNED PI - Where possible to convert to ALLOCATED PA [...] <blockquote cite="mid:6763C3B8-B19A-479B-9B8F-7C14F86BE365@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I wouldn't like to be discriminated. You would like to be? </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> This is a ridiculous statement. Enough.</pre> </blockquote> read above. <blockquote cite="mid:6763C3B8-B19A-479B-9B8F-7C14F86BE365@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> Every LIR is the same with the same rights. Under the proposed policy every LIR gets a /22, and no LIR can sell that /22.</pre> </blockquote> True but unnecessary <blockquote cite="mid:6763C3B8-B19A-479B-9B8F-7C14F86BE365@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> What you keep complaining about is that new LIRs can't get as many IPv4 addresses for free as LIRs that started before September 2012. That is just the way it is. Policy changes over time, and things that were possible in the past are no longer possible today. Circumstances change. If we (the community) hadn't changed the policy like that then there would be no addresses to give out at all anymore.</pre> </blockquote> I am not complaing about that discussing this policy I was just thanking again old LIRs 'cause Gert remembered me the same note here. <blockquote cite="mid:6763C3B8-B19A-479B-9B8F-7C14F86BE365@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> But all of that has nothing to do with this policy discussion. In your previous message you spoke about the bottom up process, that it means that everybody has to be listened to. That is almost correct. What it means is that everybody is allowed to speak and have their arguments considered seriously. If those arguments are found to be false then they can be put aside, and nobody is required to keep listening to endless repeats of those same rejected arguments. Cheers, Sander </pre> </blockquote> I am not thinking my arguments are false. <blockquote cite="mid:6763C3B8-B19A-479B-9B8F-7C14F86BE365@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> </blockquote> regards Riccardo <div class="moz-signature">-- <pre><img src="cid:part1.696590A8.80079DDE@wirem.net" width="200"> </pre> <pre>WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@wirem.net">info@wirem.net</a> Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) -------------------------------------------------------------------- </pre></div></body></html>