[address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
LeaderTelecom B.V.
info at leadertelecom.nl
Sun Oct 14 14:44:52 CEST 2012
Dear Sander, > But exactly the same can happen with sub-allocated address space. Why would > transfers be any different? At least with a transfer you can show that the > responsibility for those addresses was (temporarily) transferred to another > organisation. With sub-allocated addresses the responsibility remains with the > original holder, who would then probably even have a bigger problem explaining > everything and getting off the spam lists. > This seems to be an argument *in favour* of using temporary transfers... It is very difficult discuss with black lists delisting. Some of black lists can ignore requests. It is better prevent blacklisting. If I understund well policy of transfers - minimal term of transfer - 2 years. It is too long too. I understund that it is normail for EU, but for Russia most of agreement usualy for 1 year. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. Team URL: [1]http://www.LeaderTelecom.nl/ - IP- addresses URL: [2]http://www.GetWildcard.com/nl - WildCard SSL certificates 14.10.2012 16:23 - Sander Steffann написал(а): Hi, > > > Permanenent transfer cost [...] > > > Please remember that the current transfer policy explicitly states "This > > re-allocation may be on either a permanent or non-permanent basis." so you can > > already use the current transfer policy for temporary transfers. > > After temporary transfer you can receive back IPs which listed in Spamhouse. I don't know any company which will temporary transfers IPs. But exactly the same can happen with sub-allocated address space. Why would transfers be any different? At least with a transfer you can show that the responsibility for those addresses was (temporarily) transferred to another organisation. With sub-allocated addresses the responsibility remains with the original holder, who would then probably even have a bigger problem explaining everything and getting off the spam lists. This seems to be an argument *in favour* of using temporary transfers... Sander [1] http://www.leadertelecom.nl/ [2] http://www.GetWildcard.com/nl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20121014/b4a0f5e8/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]