[address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roger Jørgensen
rogerj at gmail.com
Thu May 10 17:02:30 CEST 2012
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio at ripe.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Colleagues >> >> A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation >> and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now >> available for discussion. >> >> >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 > > > If I understand the rationale correctly, the change essentially means that a > LIR has more time to actually implement a use of a transferred block, than > they have for a new block. > > I am a n00b at these matters, but I don't quite see why this is an important > change, and why as much as 24 months is necessary. > > Could someone please try to enlighten me? wild guess... you got 24months to sell it to someone else? :-) -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]