Hi Carsten,
After reading several times our proposal, I think I got your point and I guess
you’re right.
The actual text may be interpreted to limit the subsequent allocation to be
based only on the planned longevity, but not the other possibilities.
I think it can be reworded as:
“If an
Dear WG
I support this policy. It seems natural to me that for allocation of subsequent
space the same rules apply like for the initial allocation. It also helps
organizations, that have received their space before the updated initial
allocation policy can receive space based on the same
Hi Carsten,
Thanks for your support.
Regarding your question, yes the idea is to follow the same criteria as for the
initial allocation. Do you think the text is not clear and requieres some
clarification ?
Regards,
Jordi
> El 24 nov 2016, a las 21:04, Carsten Brückner
Dear colleagues,
At RIPE 73 there was support for a review of the RIPE community's
accountability, by looking at its current procedures, documentation and
structures.
An Accountability Task Force has been established to carry out this work
and will have its first meeting in the coming
Hi Angel,
Typically the route objects are being used to create daily filters at
certain upstream / backbone providers..
As long as you delete the old RIPE Route object (let's say 12 hrs before the
migration ) and create a new one for the new transit provider to allow them
to notify their
