[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] *FIREWALL-SPAM ALERT* Re: 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Sat Feb 21 14:05:08 CET 2015
Hello Saeed, > Now, isn't it possible, that RIPE NCC develops a policy ( maybe there one ) to take back these advertised address spaces ? > because their initial criteria is not valid any more ? ( obviously those organization, do not need these address spaces. ) > > I can understand LEASING some IPs for some period of time, but I can't understand selling them. We (this working group) had that discussion in 2007 when policy proposal 2007-08 was introduced. At the time it was decided that reallocation (transfers) were a better / more viable solution than trying to reclaim unused addresses. Please take a look at the mailing list archives to see how the discussion went. It was a quite long discussion. Proposal 2007-08: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08 Mailing list archive: https://www.ripe.net/search?SearchableText=2007-08&portal_type%3Alist=Message Cheers, Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] *FIREWALL-SPAM ALERT* Re: 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]