[address-policy-wg] regarding housecleaning efforts in absurdum
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] regarding housecleaning efforts in absurdum
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Wed Aug 14 17:48:38 CEST 2013
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Jim Reid wrote: > IIUC, in these cases the NCC generally tries to take a more pragmatic > approach. Well, that didn't seem to happen in this case. > Surely there's somebody at the original company who can put something in > writing to confirm that the address space moved when the network was > transferred all those years ago? *sigh*. Yes, that is the stance RIPE NCC has taken it seems. And when that person who *surely* exists can't be produced or won't sign because they know nothing about this, the space will be reclaimed. > For all we know an officer of that company might have been in contact > with the NCC and told a different story from the one given by the > current user of the space. Speculation doesn't really help. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] regarding housecleaning efforts in absurdum
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]