[address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friacas
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Tue Apr 28 14:09:17 CEST 2015
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > I already expressed my opinion about multiple LIR's in details in previous letters. > > "Allocate you" means "you" as contact person. You are not required to have only one organisation. > You can open some amount of legal person and then open LIR's for each. After that request /22's for your LIR's as mentioned earlier. I don't see a problem in one person managing multiple LIRs. Really, i understand that managing LIRs for 3rd parties can be a service. A big company can own dozens of other small companies and get a /22 from each of them -- but it shouldn't. In the case it wants to merge, it should return all the /22s to the NCC pool except one. If the "well-known workaround" can't be fixed (and wrong-doings reverted) then the policy is useless. ps: I've always been a strong supporter of v6 deployment, but i never agreed with the idea that we should run-out v4 aggressively. Regards, Carlos
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]