[policy-announce] [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Previous message (by thread): [policy-announce] [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [policy-announce] [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com
Wed Sep 5 12:16:00 CEST 2012
* Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > Each and every existing policy is subject to review, change and/or improvement. > Thus, when there is a proposal to amend existing policy text, this might be a > good point in time to have a look at the whole set of provisions. I disagree. > " > LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR cannot re-allocate complete > or partial blocks of the same address space to another LIR within 24 months of > receiving the re-allocation. > " > " > The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum > allocation block size at the time of re-allocation. > " Your questions are off topic, as both of those sentences you quoated are not modified in any way by 2012-05. You are of course free to start a new discussion about them, submit a new proposal to change them, and so forth. But please, don't hijack the 2012-05 thread. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
- Previous message (by thread): [policy-announce] [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [policy-announce] [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]