Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

> On 23 Oct 2016, at 01:31, Arash Naderpour wrote: > > Luckily we still have an /8 in RIPE (and thanks to the old community members > for that), but 2016-03 cannot make that much change on draining rate. And I > don't think that the pool is that much drained by traders.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

issues. I am against this proposal as it is unfair, and some or maybe of us do not agree with retroactively policies, we already know how the work from our  governments :) Thanks, --  Bogdan-Stefan Rotariu Sent with Airmail On 17 May 2016 at 15:09:14, Remco van Mook (remco.vanm...@gmail.com) wrote

Re: [address-policy-wg] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria

> On Nov 16, 2015, at 11:02, David - ProfesionalHosting > wrote: > > OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation > from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. This would only be possible if the LIR has > not transferred any IPv4 address space