This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[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 ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Tue Apr 28 14:36:36 CEST 2015
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 01:09:17PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: >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. 1) Again, this can be a perfectly legitimate business case. 2) A holding company can own many subsidiaries and there is no (and neither should there be a) requirement to even inform the NCC of this fact as long as no merging of LIRs is required. 3) a requirement to return all but one /22 in case of a merger is unrealistic and would mean an infringement on, again perfectly legitimate, business transactions between LIRs. 4) Since the M&A procedure is not a matter of address policy, this is the wrong place to debate it anyway. rgds, Sascha Luck
- 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 ]