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]/
[members-discuss] M&A procedure and transfers restrictions
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] M&A procedure and transfers restrictions
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] M&A procedure and transfers restrictions
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Aleksey Bulgakov
aleksbulgakov at gmail.com
Tue Jan 15 15:47:58 CET 2019
No, it's bad solution. It doesn't stimulate to switch to IPv6. Moreover my question isn't about new rules. I ask why does the NCC tell that M&A isn't subject of transfer of the resources but show transfer statistics and prolong 24 months transfer restriction period? вт, 15 янв. 2019 г., 17:37 Lutz Donnerhacke L.Donnerhacke at iks-service.de: > How about a simple solution: > > - The last/8 policy was designed to give each LIR only a single > IPv4 resource in order to keep future LIRs in the game. > > - Therefore: All resources handed out under the last/8 policy > can be hold only once by a single LIR. > > - If two LIRs merge and both have a /8 resource, they have to > give back one of them. > > - A last/8 resource can’t be transferred to a LIR which already > holds another last/8 resource. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20190115/34365feb/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] M&A procedure and transfers restrictions
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] M&A procedure and transfers restrictions
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]