[address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Draft Documents and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Draft Documents and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
George Giannousopoulos
ggiannou at gmail.com
Tue Mar 1 09:52:52 CET 2016
Hello all, Just before the review phase ends, I'd like to express my agreement with this proposal. [X] yes, this makes sense, go there Keeping all transfer policies in a single document is much more convenient than searching within scattered documents. I also strongly support Remco's suggestion to reference this policy in the other policy documents -- George On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Erik Bais <erik at bais.name> wrote: > Hi Sascha & Daniel, > > The reason for using the term "scares resource", is because we > can't/shouldn't use the term "depleted'.. > > If one would use the term "Depleted' the NCC might say that the pool isn't > completely empty yet.. so it isn't depleted yet.. > Which would mean that there is, until it is really empty, no transfer > restriction. ( that is a different discussion.. ) > > The community suggested in the last 2 RIPE meetings that the transfer > restrictions should not apply for 32 bits ASN and IPv6.. > > The policy proposal states : > > > 2.2 Transfer Restrictions > > Scarce resources, which are understood as those resources that are > allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC on a restricted basis (such as IPv4 > or 16-bit ASNs), cannot be transferred for 24 months from the date the > resource > > was received by the resource holder. > > The Impact Analyses states : > > > Holding Period for Scarce Resources > > The RIPE NCC understands “scarce resources” to include IPv4 PA, IPv4 PI > and 16-bit AS Numbers. If the community declares other resources to be > scarce, the list of resources for which the holding period will apply will > be adjusted accordingly. > > The policy proposal dictates what a scares resource is (after community > discussion in the last 2 RIPE meetings) and it is the policy that is > leading here.. > > The Impact Analyses of the RIPE NCC, is what the RIPE NCC thinks what is > written and intended by the policy.. and they are re-hashing what we did > and how additional 'future' scares resources might need to be defined in > the future. > > If the community declares other resources to be scarce, the list of > resources for which the holding period will apply will be adjusted > accordingly.. > And as that is a policy change, it should go through the PDP process. > > I think that what you are asking is what is already in the proposal and > what you are looking for in a procedure, is already what is the used > process ... > > If not, what are we missing ? > > Regards, > Erik Bais > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160301/05ce6e5d/attachment.html>
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Draft Documents and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]