Envoyé : lundi 11 mai 2015 15:31
À : address-policy-wg@ripe.netmailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Objet : Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis
Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi,
On 11.05.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote:
We
Ingvoldstad
frett...@gmail.com /divdivDate:10/06/2015 17:56 (GMT+00:00)
/divdivTo: RIPE Address Policy WG address-policy-wg@ripe.net
/divdivSubject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact
Analysis Published /divdiv
/divOn Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Vladimir Andreev
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:50:30AM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and
not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this
to the community because this is not the first time personally attack
happening
RIPE *policy*, on the other hand, is explicitely not made by the RIPE
NCC or the RIPE NCC members, but by the RIPE community - which is
individual having an interest not corporations being part of a
commercial structure.
the reason for this is because the internet serves the entire community,
Dear All,
On 10/6/15 10:50, Lu Heng wrote:
And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in
any of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very
much double that you have been told you need to have board approval for
your allocation request(if one of
Hi Ciprian:
Your Email are full of false claim and accusation, none of them making
sense as well as speaking from your knowledge, all of them are from your
speculation, please verify your data before you post anything, and please
stop post any of the personal information here any more.
I will
Ciprian, Lu,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:14:56PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
On 6/10/2015 1:48 PM, Lu Heng wrote:
[..]
I think enough has been said on both sides, and the amount of information
the conversation had which might be relevant to the proposal at hand has
been said (and is publically
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:48:18PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy
proposal under discussion, it *is* giving a background on what
is happening or has happened outside the last /8 range, and some
of these transfers indeed make the 30x /22
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:35:51AM +0300, Storch Matei wrote:
I'm sorry, but from this reply I understand two things:
1) if somebody speaks up for the first time, that someone's opinion values
less than that of somebody that spoje up before.
2) if somebody speaks up well within the set
Hi,
On 6/10/2015 1:48 PM, Lu Heng wrote:
Abuse is not an opinion, it is an statement and accusation, and you are
making an statement in a public space about me and my company, unless you
have solicit evidence, such statement is unlawful across each continent.
If what happens today with the
Thing is, anyone can send a mail to this list, and generally speaking,
everyone's opinion is listened to.
Now, if on the last day, a number of people nobody has ever heard of
show up, from freemail accounts, and send -1s without any arguments,
I think you can understand that it's a bit hard
Message-
From: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@space.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 14:03
To: Storch Matei
Cc: Gert Doering; Vladimir Andreev; address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis
Published
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:35:51AM
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:38:02PM +0300, Storch Matei wrote:
For a start, it's totally impossible to define who is entitled to vote, and
how you get a represenative part of the community to actually vote -
really? RIPE members should vote, since they are the ones affected,
RIPE NCC
Hi Lu,
On 6/10/2015 11:50 AM, Lu Heng wrote:
Hi Ciprian:
Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But at
least this time it was not random gmail address used by someone to hide
their identity. So I will responds:
I would never hide when wanting to express my
Hi
See my reply below:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Ciprian Nica off...@ip-broker.uk wrote:
Hi Lu,
On 6/10/2015 11:50 AM, Lu Heng wrote:
Hi Ciprian:
Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But
at
least this time it was not random gmail address used
Hi,
Gert, sorry but I don't want to leave things unclear so I'll send this
one last reply to Lu. Please don't take into consideration any
discussions related to this issue when analyzing the 2015-01 approval.
It is off-topic but I think it shows a problem that needs to be
understood and maybe
Hi,
I was called up by someone posting my personally information as well as my
company information in the list, and all I did was defend my self.
I would call the community as well as the Chair, to clarify, personal
information and attack should not be put in to a policy discussion list,
* r...@ntx.ru r...@ntx.ru [2015-06-10 15:00]:
Greetings!
Hello,
the discussion phase ended yesterday so this will not be put into
consideration.
-1We did a lot of analytics and do not support this idea. It will
not help to reach the goal and will not help community, companies
rearrange and
@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact
Analysis Published
Message-ID: 5577d79c.7020...@schiefner.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Dear Vladimir,
On 10.06.2015 08:09, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
You're angry because you know that it's
Dear AP WG,
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:43:12PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of
Transfer
Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published.
[..]
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis
Published
* r...@ntx.ru r...@ntx.ru [2015-06-10 15:00]:
Greetings!
Hello,
the discussion phase ended yesterday so this will not be put into
consideration.
-1We did a lot of analytics and do not support this idea. It will
not help to reach
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 07:04:27PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
divHi!/divdiv /divdivAccording to PDP it's possibly to change any
proposal's state to Discussion or Withdraw after Review
phase./divdiv
Yes, this is true, and we do that if the chairs come to the conclusion that
there is
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:38 PM, r...@ntx.ru r...@ntx.ru wrote:
Greetings again,
Sorry that I joined this discussion with delay, but as i was found a lot
of people didnt get notified or get in touch with this discussion as
myself. Currently I discuss this things at ENOG9 with people.
I
Hi! According to PDP it's possibly to change any proposal's state to "Discussion" or "Withdraw" after "Review" phase. 10.06.2015, 18:59, "Jan Ingvoldstad" frett...@gmail.com:On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:38 PM, r...@ntx.ru r...@ntx.ru wrote:Greetings again, Sorry that I joined this discussion with
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Vladimir Andreev vladi...@quick-soft.net
wrote:
Hi!
According to PDP it's possibly to change any proposal's state to
Discussion or Withdraw after Review phase.
That's true, but _right now_, he is too late.
If there is a new discussion phase, he can voice
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 04:38:44PM +0300, r...@ntx.ru wrote:
Ripe free ips number is growing but you make it harder to get?!
We are not. This proposal will not change the amount of addresses a
new LIR can get or the actions required to get there in any way.
What it does is making it
I support Aleksey's opinion (NOT this proposal). Why address -policy -wg doesn't tell anything about little influence of transfers on the system? 11:23, 9 июня 2015 г., Aleksey Bulgakov aleksbulga...@gmail.com:-1 I cannot support this proposal. There were the calculation was showing little part
* Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of
Transfer
Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published.
Support +1
Erik Bais
Hallo!
I fully support this proposal.
regards,
Thomas
schrieb Marco Schmidt am 11.05.2015 13:43:
Dear colleagues,
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of Transfer
Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published.
The impact analysis that was conducted
Guten Tag,
Hi!
Fully support your arguments.
09.06.2015, 13:42, Storch Matei ma...@profisol.ro:
Hi,
I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of view
regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my understanding
that this policy will not make a real
-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On
Behalf Of Garry Glendown
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 13:04
To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis
Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4
Hi Arash,
This policy proposal will not prevent organisations from setting up one or
more LIRs and hoarding the /22s. It will only add a two-year restriction
before a /22 from the last /8 can be transferred.
The 24 month period will increase the cost of the 'hoarding' ... which makes it
a
I think Arash is speaking about possibility to receive multiple /22's and use
it for own purposes.
09.06.2015, 10:19, Erik Bais e...@bais.name:
Hi Arash,
This policy proposal will not prevent organisations from setting up one or
more LIRs and hoarding the /22s. It will only add a two-year
* Aleksey Bulgakov aleksbulga...@gmail.com [2015-06-09 15:27]:
Why do older LIRs have more priveledges than new ones? They didn't setup
new accounts before 2012 didn't pay for each /22. I won't be call such
names, but you will understand who are they if you open The transfer
statistics.
The
You're right, I meant we from AS20783. I thought this was clear.
--
Gerald (AS20783)
Am 09.06.2015 um 15:28 schrieb Vladimir Andreev:
Don't generalize please. We don't really mean all.
09.06.2015, 16:26, Gerald K. ger...@ax.tc:
After all the pros and cons - we support 2015-01!
--
Gerald
Hi Gert,
Maybe my message was a little too extensive. I was in the room in London
when the subject was discussed and I remember all the details.
What should be pointed out is the effects of the policy and if the
community will benefit from it or some small group of people.
To summarize the
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote:
I call this spam: http://p.ip.fi/Zid3
Actually, I call this worse than spam as it not only spams, it
misrepresents which mechanism the mail has been sent through on
purpose. It was an outright lie.
When spammers and abusers
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 05:22:43PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:
I expect the answer to be no, and for good reason. Yet, could chairs
comment on if there is a way to exclude people from participating on
this and other RIPE mailing lists?
Only on very exceptional circumstances. Like,
-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf
Of Garry Glendown
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 14:01
To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis
Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Guten Tag,
Hi!
Fully
* Aleksey Bulgakov aleksbulga...@gmail.com [2015-06-09 16:24]:
The new LIRs don't pay for a /22 from the last /8 either. They pay to
become a LIR exactly as the older LIRs did. What do you mean?
I mean that LIRs before 2012 year didn't setup new accounts. They
could get new blocks so many
The new LIRs don't pay for a /22 from the last /8 either. They pay to
become a LIR exactly as the older LIRs did. What do you mean?
I mean that LIRs before 2012 year didn't setup new accounts. They
could get new blocks so many as they wish in one LIR account. But
after this proposal will take
* Aleksey Bulgakov
Sorry I can't take this serious from a person who spams LIR contacts
to sell the /22s he got by violating the intention of the last-/8
policy. This proposal has to go trough as soon as possible. Further
improvements can always be done in other proposals if the need
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 04:30:09PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
Don't generalize please. We don't really mean all.
I'm well able to understand that Gerald isn't speaking for you, no need
to point that out.
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:19:53PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
A big minus from me to this policy as I think that profit should not be
the only reason that drives our actions.
Profit is very explicitely not the reason behind this.
Even if Elvis is driving the policy - those who care to
*will be able to
2015-06-09 17:21 GMT+03:00 Aleksey Bulgakov aleksbulga...@gmail.com:
The new LIRs don't pay for a /22 from the last /8 either. They pay to
become a LIR exactly as the older LIRs did. What do you mean?
I mean that LIRs before 2012 year didn't setup new accounts. They
could
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:19:40PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
(FWIW, I think the transfer rules should be removed from the AA
policy documents and promulgated in a new document, it would
lessen confusion and make changes easier)
This, actually, is work in progress. Expect a new
I didn't want to point the finger directly to the ones I was referring
to but obviously I appologize to all other russians. It's just your
company and mr. Bulgakov who have abused in my opinion of the last /8.
But only because of 2 rotten apples I would not throw them all away.
Ciprian
On
You spoke that some russians make profit and don't speak about other nations.
Table of TOP transfers from your last letter shows it clearly.
09.06.2015, 19:33, Ciprian Nica off...@ip-broker.uk:
On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
help the last /8 pool become even larger
rotten apples
Such words regards to unknown person says a lot about you. Quite a lot.
I consider it below my dignity to continue the dialogue with you.
09.06.2015, 19:55, Ciprian Nica off...@ip-broker.uk:
I didn't want to point the finger directly to the ones I was referring
to but
Jump Management is a legit business and I'm pround to say I represented
them in many transactions. They didn't hoard the last /8 and more
importantly they didn't hoard the pre-last /8, so please don't bring
them into discussion
Maybe at the next RIPE meeting I'll prepare an accurate presentation
With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started
over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into
it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable
projection.
So we can't say exactly there are progressive IPv4 exhaustion and we
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:50:43PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
We have another saying in Romania don't sell the bear's skin while he's
in the forrest, so I will not consider reasonable that last /8 is in
any real danger. The available IPv4 resources were in danger and we, the
entire
On 11.05.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote:
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of
Transfer
Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published.
+1
Cheers,
Tim
Dne 9.6.2015 v 18:09 Ciprian Nica napsal(a):
I saw a lot of flames and smoke but no real objective, technical,
analysis of the policy effects.
Therefore I must insist and please contradict me if I'm wrong. In my
opinion the adoption of this policy will :
- increase membership fees
-
We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder
is not equal to solving the problem.
Ciprian Nica
On 6/9/2015 9:01 PM, Ondřej Caletka wrote:
Dne 9.6.2015 v 18:09 Ciprian Nica napsal(a):
I saw a lot of flames and smoke but no real objective, technical,
analysis of the
Hi Garry,
On 6/9/2015 8:22 PM, Garry Glendown wrote:
Hi,
Therefore I must insist and please contradict me if I'm wrong. In my
opinion the adoption of this policy will :
- increase membership fees
Based on what? Because would-be IP-hoarders and people hoping to gain by
abusing the policy to
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Ciprian Nica off...@ip-broker.uk wrote:
We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder
is not equal to solving the problem.
Solving the problem 100% and perfectly is utopia.
This is one step in the right direction, and as we are
Hi,
Opteamax GmbH wrote:
[...]
Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not
publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd
have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the
routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete
I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem
-1 to this proposal
Guten Tag,
Hi Garry,
It's simple math. Any new LIR would pay 2000 EUR besides the yearly fee.
I think it can be considered a hoarding tax which at this moment seems
quite considerable when compared to the profit of the hoarder. We all
benefit from that money. RIPE needs to keep a stable
Hi,
On 6/9/2015 10:28 PM, Garry Glendown wrote:
- help the last /8 pool become even larger
Measures for IP space conservation have ensured availability of
addresses over the last ~10 years - if sensible decisions about policies
cause push the frame further than previous measures have, I'd
As said many-many times /22 reselling from last /8 is not significant.
I really tired to repeat this. And It's objective view. You (and anybody else)
can calculate all digest which were brought and make sure it's really so.
But I hear again and again that we should stop abusing, it's not intend
There can be startups that get sold before 2 years and they would get
affected or companies that go broke and try to get back part of their
investment, but, as you saw, the guys that do circumvent RIPE policy
will still be able to do it, so it won't affect them.
Ciprian
On 6/9/2015 10:49 PM,
Hi,
If RIPE would enforce (just like with asn) the announcement of received /22s
within a period of 1-2 months after the allocation, hoarding would be stopped.
The sellers would not be able to advertise them as brand new never used, as
this detail gives them the most of their value.
Also,
On 09.06.2015 19:54, Ciprian Nica wrote:
Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and
I'll fully support it.
The only proposal which would actually fully stop this is actually
refusing Prefix-Transfers completely and enforce returning to the RIPE-Pool.
The only
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 08:01:29PM +, Borhan Habibi wrote:
I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem
-1 to this proposal
I find it quite interesting to see so many people show up today (on the
very last day of the review phase) that have never been seen on the APWG
On 09/06/2015 12:15, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
This is also the (only) reason why I oppose this proposal. It
sets a precedent for ex post facto rule changes which is, IMO,
dangerous, especially in light of other appetites for stricter
IPv4 rationing that have been voiced in this discussion.
not
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:43:12PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of
Transfer
Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published.
The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also
* Sascha Luck [ml] a...@c4inet.net [2015-06-09 13:18]:
Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it
should be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of
this policy. Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a
change of the rules during the game and it would
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 01:14:00AM +0430, Arash Naderpour wrote:
-1 to this proposal.
Why? Disagreeing without giving a reason makes it impossible to address
your concerns - and since we're not voting but building consensus, this is
not overly helpful.
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
...@space.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:51 AM
To: Arash Naderpour
Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis
Published
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 01:14:00AM +0430, Arash Naderpour wrote:
-1 to this proposal.
Why? Disagreeing without
Hello,
I support this proposal.
Regards,
Daniel
On 11.5.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of
Transfer
Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published.
The impact analysis that was conducted for
* Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net [2015-05-11 13:48]:
Dear colleagues,
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of
Transfer
Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published.
The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been
Hi Sasha,
A LIR now joining the RIPE NCC has no way of determining what the
spirit of a policy is. (bar, perhaps, reading all apwg
discussions leading to it) The letter of the document is all that
counts and IPRAs can't make determinations based on the spirit
either, otherwise this proposal
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for your questions.
The proposal would only put into place a 24 month holding period for
allocations that were made by the RIPE NCC. For allocations that are
transferred between LIRs, an identical (24 month) holding period already
exists.
It has already been mentioned on
+1
On 11.05.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of
Transfer
Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published.
The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been
published.
On 12. mai 2015, at 17.41, Sascha Luck [ml] a...@c4inet.net wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 05:01:58PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Actually while it was according to the letter of the policy, I
think it will be hard to find someone to actually say it was
according to the spirit of the last-/8
Hi,
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 07:29:23PM +0200, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)
wrote:
What kind of allocations is talking Marco about? RIPE to LIR or LIR to LIR?
*Allocation* is a well-defined term that is strictly RIPE NCC - LIR
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 05:01:58PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Actually while it was according to the letter of the policy, I
think it will be hard to find someone to actually say it was
according to the spirit of the last-/8 policy. So I'd
challenge the reasonable in your statement.
A LIR now
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
It is affecting *new* activities that a LIR might or might not start
with their allocation in the future (namely: transfer it away).
Trying to keep the noise level low: I agree strongly with this and
with everything else Gert
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net wrote:
You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01
and the draft document at:
Hi,
On 11.05.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote:
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 June 2015.
I support this proposal. I do not think that this will have a big
impact, but it certainly brings the policy in alignment with the
Am 11.05.15 um 13:43 schrieb Marco Schmidt:
Dear colleagues,
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of
Transfer
Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published.
The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been
published.
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 08:14:24PM +0200, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
This has already happened before (remember 2007-01?) and it happens
with every change of policy..
2007-01 is a good example of why ex post facto changes are a bad
idea. This was controversial then and is still controversial
Hi all!
I don't understand true reasons of this proposal creation.
Let's think together. If it was created to interrupt exhaustion of
IPv4 blocks, I want retort:
today, 11.05.2015 have been allocated 6392 IPv4 from last /8
(last block is 185.99.220.0/22, 256/4=64, 64*99=6336, 6336+224/4=6392)
Hi all!
I don't understand true reasons of this proposal creation.
Let's think together. If it was created to interrupt exhaustion of
IPv4 blocks, I want retort:
today, 11.05.2015 have been allocated 6392 IPv4 from last /8
Last block is 185.99.220.0/22, 256/4=64, 64*99=6336, 6336+224/4=6392
If
Exuse me about two same emails. It was bag in my client
2015-05-11 23:22 GMT+03:00, Sergey Stecenko stecenkos...@gmail.com:
Hi all!
I don't understand true reasons of this proposal creation.
Let's think together. If it was created to interrupt exhaustion of
IPv4 blocks, I want retort:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 09:32:19PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
This is borderline to bad faith.
ISTR you not being very happy about being accused on this list,
so I would thank you very much, indeed, not to accuse me of
acting in bad faith.
Yours sincerely,
Sascha Luck
Hi Sacha,
On 11/05/15 19:00, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
In light of this, I will oppose this proposal. For what that will
turn out to be worth.
if I understand correctly, you are opposing to the RIPE NCC's planned
implementation of this proposal (under the terms and understanding of
this Impact
That potential two years grace period is an invitation to all IP grabbers
to grab more.
Richard
Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.
90 matches
Mail list logo
