Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

>> It might be self-evident to you how this is problematic. It >> is not to me. > > Because I think when there is an unfair situation (some folks > bound to rules/policies, others not), there is a problem. You cannot change history, and the fact that some assignments were made under different

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

>> > Responding below, in-line. >> >> *PLEASE* use some meaningful way to quote and answer inline so a >> reader can distinguish between the original text and your answer. You >> current mode of answering is making this really hard. > > I will use [Jordi] to make it clear.

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

Hi, just to prevent any remote possibility of misunderstanding, I support this policy. Regards, - Håvard

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

> Since there were many discussions and yes, I've made the mistake to write > in a different topic about the 2015-04, I want to state clearly that I > oppose this policy. > > Again, if it would do what it's goal is, then it would be perfect. But it > doesn't. It brings up important changes which

Re: [address-policy-wg] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria

>> On 16 Nov 2015, at 09:02, David - ProfesionalHosting >> wrote: >> >> OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 >> allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. This would only >> be possible if the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address >>

Re: [address-policy-wg] PA policy

On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:10:20PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote: global routing system, as each individual sub-organization's route will need to be carried globally, and there's no possibility for route aggregation. I'm hesitating a little to find an appropriate characterization of what would