[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Mon May 11 19:00:08 CEST 2015
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 06:06:09PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: >The proposal would apply to allocations that were made in the past. >When the RIPE NCC received a transfer request, we would check to see >that at least 24 months had elapsed since the allocation was made. For >example, a /22 allocation that was made 23 months before the proposal >was accepted would have a waiting period of one month before it could >be transferred. I do not think the NCC should go down the road of applying policy changes ex post facto. A LIR can reasonably expect that conditions attached at the time of allocation/assignment of a resource would continue to obtain throughout the lifetime of that assignment. Why, a policy could be enacted that retroactively invalidates allocation/assignment criteria, resulting in LIRs having to return most or all of their allocations. Or, how a bout a retroactive charging scheme? In light of this, I will oppose this proposal. For what that will turn out to be worth. rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]