[address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com
sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com
Fri Jun 6 03:34:11 CEST 2014
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Overall, this policy looks good to me. However, I believe there is one >> problem with the text. The language regarding recipients in other regions >> requires that the recipient be an LIR. However, the transfer policies of >> the other regions do not make any such distinction. Therefore, I believe it >> would be more appropriate to use the word organization instead of LIR when >> referring to recipients in other regions. >> > > That's a fair point. > > -When Internet number resources are transferred to another RIR, the RIPE > NCC will work with the destination RIR to allow the transfer to the > receiving LIR. > +When Internet number resources are transferred to another RIR, the RIPE > NCC will work with the destination RIR to allow the transfer to the > receiving organization. > > Like that? > Yes. ________________________ I am in agreement with Scott and Jan on this revision..."LIR" becomes "receiving organization". Thank you to you both. - Sandra Also: -Address space may only be re-allocated to another LIR that is a member of an RIR that allows transfers. The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum allocation block size at the time of re-allocation. +Address space may only be re-allocated to another organization that is a member of an RIR that allows transfers. The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum allocation block size at the time of re-allocation. However, that may have implications for intra-RIR transfers, so you might need to separate out the two cases if you don't want to imply that non-LIR organizations can receive transfers in the RIPE region. Maybe something like "to another LIR in the RIPE region, or an organization that is a member of an RIR that allows transfers." -Scott _______________ Replacing "LIR" with "organization" should also be ok within the context of RIPE Transfer Policy. - Sandra _________________
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]