https://konecipv4.cz/en/?is=e583f1196868df2304ff1140184b103346ee70b72851338b99ab8ec03065ae3b
Regards,
Hank
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
On 07/12/2021 16:56, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
Trying to make the NCC require even more paperwork isn't going to stop
those that want to game the system, but will impact everyone else by
making the NCC more annoying to deal with.
My suggestion would be along the lines what was proposed on the
On 21/10/2020 13:16, Jim Reid wrote:
If you think legacy holders should pay something, I maybe agree with that in principle. [But definitely not signing a service agreement which forces a legacy holder to become an LIR.] And maybe that’s a discussion that could be had
On 09/10/2019 09:58, David Guo via address-policy-wg wrote:
David,
Thanks. But shouldn't one be able to query something like this from
some xxx.ripe.net site rather than depending on archive.org or bgpview.io?
-Hank
Why don't you do some search?
On 26/04/2017 02:46, Randy Bush wrote:
>> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-01, "Publish statistics on Intra-RIR
>> Legacy updates" is now available for discussion.
>>
>> The goal of this proposal is to require the RIPE NCC to publish all
>> changes to the holdership of legacy resources in the
On 23/03/2017 14:18, Laurens Hoogendoorn wrote:
>
> Our Proposal
>
> We plan to email the LIR or sponsoring LIR for each unannounced ASN
> and ask if the resource is still needed. We will group together ASNs
> that are sponsored or held by the same LIR to minimise the number of
> emails.
>
Very
I'll rephrase:
I will vote the opposite of whatever IP brokers vote. Their view is strictly commercial whereas I am not part of that subgroup.
Better?
Hank
On 19/10/2016 16:37, Ciprian Nica wrote:
Gert,
Whatever proposal(s) Ciprian supports considers my vote as a "-1".
-Hank
> The usual reply when somebody says something here is "shut up" and
> "unsubscribe" ? Really ? I think I could talk more freely in Kremlin
> than here.
>
> Yes, the noise is
On 19/10/2016 14:59, Gert Doering wrote:
> So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address
> policy WG.
As do I.
-Hank
>
> Gert Doering
> -- APWG chair
> On 04.08.2016 09:39, Ingrid Wijte wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> During RIPE 72, the RIPE NCC was asked to suggest a way forward with
>> regards to the unclear situation arising from address blocks in the
>> RIPE Database with the status ALLOCATED PI or ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED.
>> We want to
10 matches
Mail list logo
