[address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-06 New Policy Proposal (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Wed Sep 5 12:04:02 CEST 2012
[this comment is made with my view as a LIR manager] Milton L Mueller wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >> >>Besides publishing a list of v4 resources that have been moved, > > > That is the sum and substance of what 2012-05 is intended to do. > It does what ARIN and APNIC already do: provide an accessible list of resources that have been moved according to the transfer policies in place. > > >>what does this accomplish that sub-allocations don't already do? >>Is the recipient LIR charged according to the resources under their >>registry file? > > > Like the previous question that was raised, you seem to be asking questions > about the transfer policy itself, not about this proposal. The transfer policy > already exists and it is what it is. Each and every existing policy is subject to review, change and/or improvement. Thus, when there is a proposal to amend existing policy text, this might be a good point in time to have a look at the whole set of provisions. With that point of view I'd like to ask for clarification of the following provision: " LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR cannot re-allocate complete or partial blocks of the same address space to another LIR within 24 months of receiving the re-allocation. " But the receiving LIR may do so with other parts from their IPv4 address pool? What is the motivation for that particular restriction and for that particular wording? And, I am wondering, whether the following restriction is (still) useful: " The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum allocation block size at the time of re-allocation. " in particular at a point in time when Registration Services has distributed the following announcement (Sept. 4, 2012 [1] ): - Depending on the availability in the RIPE NCC’s free pool of IPv4 address space, you may receive multiple smaller prefixes that add up to the size of your request. > All this proposal does it let the community know who is using it, and to better > assess and track its consequences. > > --MM Wwilfried [1] Subject: RIPE NCC has Approximately Four Million IPv4 Addresses Before Reaching Last /8
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-06 New Policy Proposal (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]