Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:21 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > This basically means that I can also do the same every month when I speak in > about IPv6 in a conference, for any subsequent proposal that I submit, and > get hundreds of “support

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase *extended* (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

I strongly agree with the intention and am fine with the proposed solution. Richard Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity and the wall of text Gmail appends by default.

Re: [address-policy-wg] Cleaning up Unused AS Numbers

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Dickinson, Ian wrote: > Requiring an ASN to be visible on the public Internet is a non-starter IMHO. There is nor was such a requirement and the proposal in this thread does not introduce such a requirement, either. Richard

Re: [address-policy-wg] Cleaning up Unused AS Numbers

Sounds good, as does re-poking every 12-24 months. A public, or semi public, list of resources that have no holder could invite abuse. Don't do that. Richard Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity and the wall of text Gmail appends by default.

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

+1 Richard Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Richard Hartmann <richih.mailingl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I support this proposal. To qualify my +1, while I do get the argument that this will not entirely stop hogging and speculation, it's at least a step in the right direction. Even considering

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03/draft Thank you. It's not the case here, but it was the case in the past, that the actual diff and this curated overview differed. This is why I personally

Re: [address-policy-wg] insufficient availability of IPv6 address space for end customers

To answer your question: No, I do not see a need for stronger regulations in this area. Richard Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.

Re: [address-policy-wg] Opposing policy 2015-01

Procedural question: 2015-01 is still on track and this thread is not influencing it in any way, correct? Richard Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.

Re: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers

I consider all arguments exchanged so I am left with thanking chairs for maintaining a modicum of sanity so we don't have to. Richard Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.

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

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote: I call this spam: http://p.ip.fi/Zid3 Actually, I call this worse than spam as it not only spams, it misrepresents which mechanism the mail has been sent through on purpose. It was an outright lie. When spammers and abusers

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net wrote: The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation has been published. Full support. Richard

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

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote: It is affecting *new* activities that a LIR might or might not start with their allocation in the future (namely: transfer it away). Trying to keep the noise level low: I agree strongly with this and with everything else Gert

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

That potential two years grace period is an invitation to all IP grabbers to grab more. Richard Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.

Re: [address-policy-wg] Hoarding /22 out of 185/8

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Andre Keller a...@list.ak.cx wrote: In our case (which did not involve networks from the last /8) we were taking over the whole infrastructure from a datacenter site of the former LIR, but did not have an agreement that specifically said so. So we made an

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2014-03 Review Period extended until 12 February 2015 (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)

Support Richard Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.