[address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 31, Issue 15

Hi Nigel:

My suggestion was keep block in one piece and lease the block to the
local companies(if legal requires).

because put it back in one piece later on might be a problem and if
there is no real transaction involved, less specific block are always
better than smaller block for routing reasons.

my two cents.

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:52 AM,  <address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net> wrote:
> Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to
>         address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. A question (Nigel Titley)
>    2. Re: Input request for the PI Transfer policy (Elvis Velea)
>    3. Re: A question (Elvis Daniel Velea)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:25:24 +0000
> From: Nigel Titley <nigel at titley.com>
> Subject: [address-policy-wg] A question
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Message-ID: <5331BC04.1020401 at titley.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Anyone care to cast an opinion on the following question:
>
> The company I work for is about to split off one of its country
> operations into a separate company. There are various blocks in use from
> various allocations to the parent company. Is it permissible to split a
> PA block and transfer part of it to the new company in order to avoid
> having to renumber the customers? My reading of the transfer policy is
> that it is possible (if reprehensible), but I thought I'd just like to
> check with the great and the good to see what opinion is.
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:35:27 +0200
> From: Elvis Velea <elvis at velea.eu>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Input request for the PI Transfer
>         policy
> To: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Message-ID: <5331BE5F.8020108 at velea.eu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi Gert,
>
>
> On 25/03/14 15:26, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> [...]
>> There might be other reasons as well.. It's just a feeling that limiting
>> at /24 is the right thing to do. On the other hand, while writing this
>> e-mail I've been having second thoughts on each of the paragraphs and
>> reasons :-)
>> It's good to have the arguments out, so we can think through them - thanks!
> I tried to play the devil's advocate role this time. As said, even when
> writing all my con's I realized these aren't too strong.
>
> As you already know, I'm in favor of not adding any limitations in
> policy. I was just trying to voice all the possible con's.
>
>>
>> Gert Doering
>>          -- no hats
> cheers,
> elvis
>     -- blue hat to protect against the sun :-)
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:52:21 +0200
> From: Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis at v4escrow.net>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] A question
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Message-ID: <5331D065.5040402 at v4escrow.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Nigel,
>
> As far as I understand from the policy, you can transfer a block that
> contains customer assignments. The size of the block that you would
> transfer can not be (currently) smaller than a /22.
>
> So, I would say that you have two options:
> - first - where you use the transfer policy and transfer parts of an
> allocation to an other LIR (even if it's yours, in a different country).
> In this case, the IPs transferred can not be again transferred for two
> years to an other LIR.
> - second - where you sell to a separate company (parts of) your
> infrastructure (and maybe associated customers) and then you would use
> the Mergers and Acquisitions procedure. In this case, the transfer
> policy would not be used and the IPs transferred to the new company
> could then be again transferred using the transfer policy.
>
> cheers,
> elvis
>
> On 25/03/14 19:25, Nigel Titley wrote:
>> Anyone care to cast an opinion on the following question:
>>
>> The company I work for is about to split off one of its country
>> operations into a separate company. There are various blocks in use from
>> various allocations to the parent company. Is it permissible to split a
>> PA block and transfer part of it to the new company in order to avoid
>> having to renumber the customers? My reading of the transfer policy is
>> that it is possible (if reprehensible), but I thought I'd just like to
>> check with the great and the good to see what opinion is.
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> <http://v4escrow.net>
>
>
>   Elvis Daniel Velea
>
>
>     Chief Business Analyst
>
> Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis at v4escrow.net>
> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914
> EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914
>
> Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:
>
> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
> received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and
> delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140325/9e229147/attachment.html
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: logo.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 5043 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url : https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140325/9e229147/attachment.png
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: 1.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 11971 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url : https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140325/9e229147/attachment-0001.png
>
> End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 31, Issue 15
> *************************************************



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above.
It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use
of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the
intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and
e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this
message and including the text of the transmission received.