Re: [address-policy-wg] ALLOCATED PI / UNSPECIFIED next action

Am 20.10.2016 um 15:39 schrieb Ciprian Nica: > > In the past there have been PAs used as PIs so technically I think the > "allocated" part should be the one that's more important, therefore I would > support the replacement of allocated pi & unspecified to allocated pa. If > you ignore the greed

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

HI Sander, Sander Steffann wrote: [...] > > So prefix delegation is OK as long as the prefix is longer than a /64? > > Technically that's what the proposal is currently proposing. I'm curious > about the opinions of working group members about that. Taking no position on the proposal itself,

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hi, We have seen the "contact" method here at ARIN. In the past we were able to meet the needs of our clients with a Letter of Agency for ARIN. Not sure if that would fly anymore, though. What about a Letter of Agency at RIPE? Regards, Mike Burns -Original Message- From:

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

I'll be short as I'm assisting an interesting presentation ;) What I meant is that it's not "right" to be a contact person for them since I'm not the one making decisions. I'm an interface and I should be able to represent, help, interact but I feel by not allowing this, we're going too far with

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hi Ciprian, > Actually there were cases where we did like that, being put as a contact for > the LIR. I don't think this should be the solution as it doesn't seem > adequate at least. There were also cases where we would have to "speak" on > behalf of both parties so it would be awkward if not

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hi, Actually there were cases where we did like that, being put as a contact for the LIR. I don't think this should be the solution as it doesn't seem adequate at least. There were also cases where we would have to "speak" on behalf of both parties so it would be awkward if not unprofessional to

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hi Sander, On 24.10.2016 16:17, Sander Steffann wrote: > Your customer can add you as an official contact in the LIR Portal if > necessary. That is the way LIRs can define who is permitted to speak > on their behalf. I have done that in the past: got added as a > contact, handled the case for

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hi Ciprian, > There is, though, an important thing which I think the policy needs to > address. The broker should be allowed to discuss with ripe on behalf of his > customers. It has happened several times that we had customers who don't > understand english very well and many times they would

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hi Erik, Il 23/10/2016 18:06, Erik Bais ha scritto: I’ll entertain your question here, although the question isn’t in relation to the policy proposal, but more about how transfers work .. If a company splits… it is actually very simple … you setup a second LIR .. ( Provided that we are

[address-policy-wg] RIPE Resource Transfer Policies: Power of Attorney

Hi Ciprian - On 24.10.2016 10:08, Ciprian Nica wrote: > There is, though, an important thing which I think the policy needs to > address. The broker should be allowed to discuss with ripe on behalf of > his customers. It has happened several times that we had customers who > don't understand

[address-policy-wg] RIPE Resource Transfer Policies: List of IP Brokers

Hi Ciprian - On 24.10.2016 10:08, Ciprian Nica wrote: > I'd also love to get ad space for free from the RIPE NCC for my > business, but won't and don't even want to. As such, e.g. real estate > agents are not mentioned in the official land register either. > > The free ad space is

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hi, On Monday, October 24, 2016, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > Hi Ciprian - > > On 23.10.2016 16:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Erik Bais > > >> wrote: > >

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hi Ciprian - On 23.10.2016 16:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: > On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Erik Bais > wrote: > When we made the parts that needed to be published in the transfer > statistics, that have crossed my mind, but I failed to

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

Hi, > > I've heared this story over and over. Let's protect the pool, let's not > waste it and now, after 4 years the pool is almost the same size. > > The only reason that the pool is the size it is is because we received > some last scraps from IANA. The number of addresses coming from IANA