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

Ciprian Nica, If you have a problem with someone, or claim someone is abusing something take it up with RIPE NCC. NOT THIS LIST! Can you please for now just shut up with your noise? Chair/RIPE NCC/whoever, can someone consider if there is reason to actual give Ciprian a warning and possible

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Jim Reid wrote: >> On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:18, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Gert Doering wrote: ... >>> So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Riccardo Gori <rg...@wirem.net> wrote: > Hi Roger, > > Il 23/05/2016 14:38, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto: > > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Riccardo Gori <rg...@wirem.net> wrote: > >> Hi Roger, >> >> thank you fo

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Riccardo Gori <rg...@wirem.net> wrote: > Hi Roger, > > thank you for your questions. I try to answer below > > Il 21/05/2016 09:45, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto: > > > > Be specific, is it for having more address for the

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

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" > is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining address pool > to one /22 per

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Dear Working Group, > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 03:02:43PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: >> The Discussion Period for the proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation >> Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 June 2016. > > this

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

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" > is now available for discussion. What really amaze me. We are using tons of time here in ag-wg talking over IPv4 while there is

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Riccardo Gori <rg...@wirem.net> wrote: > > Il 11/05/2016 09:02, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto: > > > > minor correction, it is a state that was reached once IANA allocated the > last /8 to all the RIR's, and it affect _all_ add

Re: [address-policy-wg] Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Martin Huněk wrote: > Hello, > > I would also like to add my point of view on proposal 2015-05. hello and welcome :-) > The proposed policy would probably lower the need for such practice a little > bit, but still some space for cheating

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016, at 12:50, Niall O'Reilly wrote: >>As Roger Jørgensen has explained, once the policy was triggered, it >> was to apply to all subsequent all

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > If it can get more support, why not ? > 5 stars, why not ? (actually I have some idea why, and it wouldn't > bother me) To me it seems like there are a not so minor misunderstanding right here. It

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”)

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net wrote: Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal