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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Wed Mar 21 21:27:43 CET 2018
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018, at 17:47, Gert Doering wrote: > Thus: feedback please. Hi, I do agree with the concept of the policy as presented in the summary. The text seems (at a first reading) to confirm the stated intent. However, among the supporting arguments, only the first is clearly valid. To make it short, I don't recall being asked to return IPv6 allocations when performing a merger (M&A process) of 2 LIRs each one having v6 allocations. Not even when merging "already merged" LIRs. If such behavior does really occur under current policy, the proposal will prevent it from happening again, which is a good thing. Ah, and please fix typos :) -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]