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

2019-07-17 Thread Mike Burns
Hi Gert, And of course transfers have been possible before the RIRs existed :-) - whether or not they are "booked transfers" depends a bit on "in which book" - I'm fairly sure you could send a mail to Jon Postel "I have given this class B to my friend because I do not need it anymore" and that

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

2019-07-17 Thread Mike Burns
Hi Gert, Thanks for your reply, inline answers below. This is the wrong question to ask. "Why is changing the current system this way an improvement compared to what we have now? Improvement in which way, exactly, and who benefits?" We do not change policy just to change it, or because

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

2019-07-17 Thread Mike Burns
> -> I don't think this is "delicate" at all. Nobody is being *forced* to do that. If you have legacy, you can do transfers outside the system and nobody can oppose to that. However, please read the complete email from Mike (yesterday), I don't think nobody noticed it ... and they key think here

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

2019-07-16 Thread Mike Burns
However, regarding APNIC, from what i read on https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#8.3.-Transfer-of-Historical -Internet-resources it is not 100% clear to me that the transferred blocks lose their legacy/historical status. Can you list which policy proposals within each RIR that

Re: [address-policy-wg] Feedback needed for 2018-03 (Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy)

2018-07-16 Thread Mike Burns
transfers extracted above, we have seen recipients of inter-regional transfers into RIPE choose to designate their received space as Allocated-PI. Is this still allowed? The proposal under consideration obsoletes the designation Allocated-PI. Regards, Mike Burns -Original Message- From

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

2017-09-26 Thread Mike Burns
>I see pros and cons for both accepting this proposal and rejecting it. >One thing I'm curious about.. ARIN has run out of IPv4 space.. >Has this stopped any new startup from doing business or what? -- >George Hi George, It seems like a common belief among the proponents

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

2016-10-24 Thread Mike Burns
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- Fro

Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs

2015-06-11 Thread Mike Burns
on Mr.Huberman's post.) Thoughts? Regards, Mike Burns IPTrading.com -Original Message- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of David Huberman Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:59 AM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new