[address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
- 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 ]
Niall O'Reilly
niall.oreilly at ucd.ie
Fri Aug 16 16:40:55 CEST 2013
On 16 Aug 2013, at 15:18, Nigel Titley wrote: > On 16/08/2013 15:14, Gert Doering wrote: >>> >>> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05/ >> >> This is an amendment to the transfer policy which solves real-world >> problems for real-world LIRs - namely: abandon the requirement that a >> transferred block of addresses must be empty, because that conflicts >> with real-world scenarios, like a customer of a given LIR opening >> his own LIR later on, both parties agree to transfer the addresses >> the customer uses to the new LIR (= the customer's LIR of the customer >> using the addresses already), and the NCC then tells them "no, you >> can't do that". >> >> The proposal is in *discussion* phase, so if you want to discuss, now is >> the time. (If you just "+1" it, that's also a clear signal :-) ). >> > I think this is actually quite sensible, so +1 +1 from me too /Niall
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
- 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 ]