Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Code of Conduct and discussion on this list

Hi Leo and AP WG co-chairs, On 11.01.2024 14:42, Leo Vegoda wrote: Earlier, Denis sent a message I'd assume that you refer to one of these two most recent emails from Denis of the "[address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Review Phase (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)" thread: *

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 New Policy Proposal (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)

Read, understood & absolutely fine with it: +1 Best, -C. On 04.09.2023 11:54, Angela Dall'Ara wrote: Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal, 2023-04, "Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments" is now available for discussion. This proposal aims to

[address-policy-wg] Last call and final reminder for nominations to the 2022 Rob Blokzijl Award

[Apologies for cross-posting to various RIPE lists] Dear Address Policy WG members - this is the last call and final reminder for nominations to the 2022 Rob Blokzijl Award that will be accepted until this Friday, 18th March, at 23:59 UTC. In seeking nominations for this prestigious award,

Re: [address-policy-wg] Assignments from a /24 allocation

, -C. Forwarded Message Subject: [db-wg] NWI-4 - role of status: field in multivalued status context - reprise Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 12:45:35 +0200 From: Carsten Schiefner via db-wg Reply-To: Carsten Schiefner To: DB-WG Dear all - after a quick chat with Dennis

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Request

To whom it may concern: could "Sales " be permanently put on moderation, please? Thanks - and have a good weekend, all. Best, -C. On 12.02.2021 01:44, Sales via address-policy-wg wrote: > Greetings, > >   > > We’re looking to lease a large quantity of IPv4 addresses, long term for >

Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation

On 18.12.2018 16:19, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > As I got flagged by one active participant in this thread what I would > mean by the below; whether it has been the NCC or the participant who I > felt is attempting to intentionally misguiding the audience? > > To be crystal cl

Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation

As I got flagged by one active participant in this thread what I would mean by the below; whether it has been the NCC or the participant who I felt is attempting to intentionally misguiding the audience? To be crystal clear: the latter of the two. On 18.12.2018 13:16, Carsten Schiefner wrote

Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation

Aleksey, your stream of argument: On 18.12.2018 11:30, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > I think the NCC wants to have Monopoly for IP selling and doesn't want > to devide profit with anyone. > > Of course it has more profit if there are more members with multiple > accounts or many different accounts

[address-policy-wg] If on digest mode, please edit your Subject line !

Constanze, all - I'd be much grateful if folks here (and on any other list they are subscribed to, too) would actually follow the following recommendation: On 25.11.2016 11:04, constanze buerger wrote: > [...] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >

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

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

Hi Arash - On 13.05.2016 03:01, Arash Naderpour wrote: > That's not true, I know some LIRs qualified for /22 not requesting it > and they are not running on auto-pilot (there are fully aware of the > market situation) OK, even then: your point is? Do you empty your bank account the second your

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

Hi Aled, On 10.05.2016 14:12, Aled Morris wrote: > I am troubled by the new members joining RIPE purely to obtain IPv4 > address space. > > Perhaps (shields up!) that might in fact be a good idea, yes... ;-) > RIPE could simply offer /22 for purchase at the > same price as membership (€3,400

Re: [address-policy-wg] Support the 2015-05 Policy

Dear Rayanravesh Sena/Borhan Habibi split personality - On 06.05.2016 13:24, Rayanravesh Sena wrote: > I think this policy is fair, i support it. who are you? And if yes: how many? Best regards, Carsten

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

On 15.04.2016 00:33, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:01, Jim Reid wrote: > >> I strongly disagree with the proposal > > what Jim said, which you don't need to see again. > Well said, Jim. Ad idem. Best, -C.

Re: [address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP

Richard, all - On 14.09.2015 10:14, Richard Hartmann wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > wrote: > >> 1. Separate pools or single pool >> a. have a "last /8 pool" which is 185.0.0.0/8 (strictly one /22 per >> LIR) and a

Re: [address-policy-wg] New Proposal for IPv4 Allocations

Dear David, On 14.08.2015 09:09, r...@europeiptv.net wrote: Hello, I wonder what you think the community ripe to propose a new policy for IPv4 addressing, the proposal would be something like having another RIR as APNIC. We all know that RIPE currently has in place the policy for the last

Re: [address-policy-wg] Promote the use of IRC

Hi Yuri, On 12.08.2015 16:21, Staff wrote: It's also good idea to setup web forum where all LIRs can discuss things and policies. as long as the cross posting to the mailing list (and vice versa) would work I am all for it. Cheers, -C.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

+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.

Re: [address-policy-wg] aggregating unused allocations

Hi Antonis - On 19.03.2015 09:54, Antonis Lioumis wrote: Recently my company got a /22 allocation through the well known transfer procedure between LIR's. In the past we also got the /22 we qualify from RIPE NCC's last /8. This /22 was put aside for future use. For aggregation purposes we