Re: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update

2016-05-02 Thread Gert Doering
Hi, On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 12:29:49PM +0300, Sergiu IANCIUC wrote: > < !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> > < html>Re[2]: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] > RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update > < META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html;

Re: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update

2016-05-02 Thread Sergiu IANCIUC
Title: Re[2]: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update salut Riccardo, I do not totally agree with you.. and I explain why. you are talking about the case in the future.. but I give an actual example.. 2 years ago my company has an allocated prefix

Re: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update

2016-05-02 Thread Sergiu IANCIUC
Title: Re[2]: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update salut Riccardo, 1. I propose that here - Proposals Open for Discussion: 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria" Proposal Overviews: PROPOSAL: 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8