[address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Wed Jul 24 09:28:36 CEST 2019
Hi Nick, All, On Tue, 23 Jul 2019, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Carlos Friaças wrote on 23/07/2019 22:03: >> "e.g. geographic association" >> >> -- really...?????? > > Yep, really. > > https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/comp-pol-2018v2.pdf Nice to have that written down (i.e. in a document, referring to an actual policy). However... how far is that (the geographic association bit) from operational reality...? > see Section 1.3.4 - Out of region Use. > > + also: https://afrinic.net/policy/manual > >> 5.4.6.2 AFRINIC resources are for AFRINIC service region and any use >> outside the region should be solely in support of connectivity back >> to the AFRINIC region. "in support of connectivity back to <some> region" Really sounds like a joke. Everything will fit... Anyway, nothing about that on the other four regions.....? :-) Cheers, Carlos > Nick >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]