[address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Wed Sep 5 15:21:43 CEST 2012
Agree with Tore Anderson here. Much as I would love to discuss modification of other aspects of the transfer policy, and as important as the questions raised by Wilfried are, they are not germane to 2012-5 at all. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tore Anderson [mailto:tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com] > > 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. > > I disagree. > > > " > > 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. > > " > > > " > > The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the > > minimum allocation block size at the time of re-allocation. > > " > > Your questions are off topic, as both of those sentences you quoated are > not modified in any way by 2012-05. > > You are of course free to start a new discussion about them, submit a > new proposal to change them, and so forth. But please, don't hijack the > 2012-05 thread. > > -- > Tore Anderson > Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]