Re: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update

2016-05-02 Thread Gert Doering 
Hi,

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 12:29:49PM +0300, Sergiu IANCIUC wrote:
> < !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> < html>Re[2]: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] 
> RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update
> < META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1251">
> < meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
> < style type="text/css">

Re: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update

2016-05-02 Thread Sergiu IANCIUC 
Title: Re[2]: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update




salut Riccardo,

I do not totally agree with you.. and I explain why.

you are talking about the case in the future.. but I give an actual example..

2 years ago my company has an allocated prefix from a LIR. After 1 year we asked additional resources and had a negative response because of the RIPE Policy limitations. after the next year the situation was the same and to receive an additional prefix we became LIR. Now, pls answer... why to not permit transfer from the old LIR to the new one if they agree on it and do it for ensure the new LIR in continuity of the prefix use (all this with condition that this prefix was allocated by the old LIR when the new LIR has the status OTHER).



Best Regards,

-
Sergiu IANCIUC
SC ITNS.NET SRL

MD-2068, Moldova
or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1
tel.: +373 22 877 877
fax : +373 22 44 11 73
mobile: +373 690 22 111
url: http://www.itns.md

Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to...




Saturday, April 30, 2016, 8:33:49 AM, you wrote:






Dear Sergiu,
about your example and its eventual realtionship with the proposal 2015-05:
Company X would have not limit in receive address space as described in transfert or allocation policies.
The limit described in 2015-05 would be applied to the LIR that assigned space to Company X and, as described in your example, later transfered the space in Company X registry.
This LIR is supposed to not need address space as it moved it outside its registry so it would not be able to request an additional /22 allocation from pool outside 185/8 standing on 2015-05 proposal

On the other hand if Company X after its sing up as a new LIR after 18 months need more space and there is enough space outside 185/8  would be able to request an additional /22 standing on  2015-05 proposal. The LIR that offered the first /22 to Company X as  "assigned resource" could also request an additional /22 allocation if its registry is holding less than a /20 IPv4.

hope this help
regards
Riccardo

Il 29/04/2016 10:38, Sergiu IANCIUC ha scritto:
hello,

PLS, take in consideration the situation

Company  X  has  a  /22 from its LIR. The LIR can not offer more IPv4 
spaces   and the Company X becomes a LIR to satisfy its needs. Now, it 
is logical that the LIR (if agreed between these 2 LIRs) transfers the 
space  allocated  to the Company X (now the new LIR) AND THIS have to 
not be the part from the policy -

"requirements,  such  as  the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address 
space before."

What are you thinking about?


Best Regards,


-
Sergiu IANCIUC
SC ITNS.NET SRL


MD-2068, Moldova
or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1
tel.: +373 22 877 877
fax : +373 22 44 11 73
mobile: +373 690 22 111
url: http://www.itns.md


Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to...








This is a forwarded message
From: Marco Schmidt <mschm...@ripe.net>
To: ncc-annou...@ripe.net
Date: Friday, April 29, 2016, 11:18:23 AM
Subject: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update


===8<==Original message text===
Dear colleagues,

Here is our monthly overview of open policy proposals and their stage in 
the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP).

If you wish to join the discussion about a particular proposal, please 
do so on the relevant working group mailing list.

Proposals Open for Discussion:
2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"

Proposals Awaiting Input:
2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies"
2016-01, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy"


Proposal Overviews:

PROPOSAL: 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"
OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 
allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The latest version of the 
proposal suggests several requirements, such as the LIR cannot hold more 
than a /20 IPv4, must document their IPv6 deployment and has not 
transferred any IPv4 address space before.
STATUS: Discussion Phase
WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
DEADLINE: 13 May 2016
FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05

=

The following proposals are awaiting input before they can go any 
further in the PDP.

PROPOSAL: 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies"
OVERVIEW: Aims to create a single transfer policy with all relevant 
information on the transfer of Internet number resources, replacing text 
in several RIPE Policies. The proposal also introduces a 24-month 
holding period for IPv4 addresses and 16-bit ASNs after any change of 
holdership.
RIPE NCC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Includes the point how the 24-month holding 
period for scarce resources will be applied.
STATUS: Review Phase – Awaiting decision from working group chair
FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/part

Re: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update

2016-05-02 Thread Sergiu IANCIUC 
Title: Re[2]: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update




salut Riccardo,

1. I propose that here -

Proposals Open for Discussion:
2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"

Proposal Overviews:

PROPOSAL: 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"
OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 
allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The latest version of the 
proposal suggests several requirements, such as the LIR cannot hold more 
than a /20 IPv4, must document their IPv6 deployment and has not 
transferred any IPv4 address space before.
STATUS: Discussion Phase
WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
DEADLINE: 13 May 2016
FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05

to be introduced a definition that includes in the " has not 
transferred any IPv4 address space before" list the LIR that transferred a prefix to an other LIR if this prefix was allocated to the receiving LIR when it was not the RIPE NCC member/LIR.

2. explain pls what does it signify

The latest version of the proposal suggests several requirements, such as the LIR cannot hold more than a /20 IPv4

cannot hold more then /20 unused ?




Best Regards,

-
Sergiu IANCIUC
SC ITNS.NET SRL

MD-2068, Moldova
or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1
tel.: +373 22 877 877
fax : +373 22 44 11 73
mobile: +373 690 22 111
url: http://www.itns.md

Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to...




Saturday, April 30, 2016, 6:41:04 PM, you wrote:






Hi Sergiu,

thank you for your reply. I don't get if you disagree with current policy or proposed one.
Anyway:
The LIR that assisgned or allocated  the first /22 to your current new LIR can transfert the space once 24 months are passed.
This is the holding time before a transfert can take place standing on current policies.
2015-05 policy proposal won't change this aspect. 

kind regards 
Riccardo


Il 30/04/2016 11:29, Sergiu IANCIUC ha scritto:




salut Riccardo,

I do not totally agree with you.. and I explain why.

you are talking about the case in the future.. but I give an actual example..

2 years ago my company has an allocated prefix from a LIR. After 1 year we asked additional resources and had a negative response because of the RIPE Policy limitations. after the next year the situation was the same and to receive an additional prefix we became LIR. Now, pls answer... why to not permit transfer from the old LIR to the new one if they agree on it and do it for ensure the new LIR in continuity of the prefix use (all this with condition that this prefix was allocated by the old LIR when the new LIR has the status OTHER).



Best Regards,

-
Sergiu IANCIUC
SC ITNS.NET SRL

MD-2068, Moldova
or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1
tel.: +373 22 877 877
fax : +373 22 44 11 73
mobile: +373 690 22 111
url: http://www.itns.md

Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to...




Saturday, April 30, 2016, 8:33:49 AM, you wrote:






Dear Sergiu,
about your example and its eventual realtionship with the proposal 2015-05:
Company X would have not limit in receive address space as described in transfert or allocation policies.
The limit described in 2015-05 would be applied to the LIR that assigned space to Company X and, as described in your example, later transfered the space in Company X registry.
This LIR is supposed to not need address space as it moved it outside its registry so it would not be able to request an additional /22 allocation from pool outside 185/8 standing on 2015-05 proposal

On the other hand if Company X after its sing up as a new LIR after 18 months need more space and there is enough space outside 185/8  would be able to request an additional /22 standing on  2015-05 proposal. The LIR that offered the first /22 to Company X as  "assigned resource" could also request an additional /22 allocation if its registry is holding less than a /20 IPv4.

hope this help
regards
Riccardo

Il 29/04/2016 10:38, Sergiu IANCIUC ha scritto:
hello,

PLS, take in consideration the situation

Company  X  has  a  /22 from its LIR. The LIR can not offer more IPv4 
spaces   and the Company X becomes a LIR to satisfy its needs. Now, it 
is logical that the LIR (if agreed between these 2 LIRs) transfers the 
space  allocated  to the Company X (now the new LIR) AND THIS have to 
not be the part from the policy -

"requirements,  such  as  the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address 
space before."

What are you thinking about?


Best Regards,


-
Sergiu IANCIUC
SC ITNS.NET SRL


MD-2068, Moldova
or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1
tel.: +373 22 877 877
fax : +373 22 44 11 73
mobile: +373 690 22 111
url: http://www.itns.md


Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to...








This is a forwarded message
From: Marco Schmidt <mschm...@ripe.net>
To: ncc-annou...@ripe.net

Re: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update

2016-04-30 Thread Riccardo Gori 

Hi Sergiu,


Il 30/04/2016 19:15, Sergiu IANCIUC ha scritto:
Re[2]: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy 
Proposals - April Update


salut Riccardo,


1. I propose that here -


Proposals Open for Discussion:

2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"


Proposal Overviews:


PROPOSAL: 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"

OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4

allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The latest version of the

proposal suggests several requirements, such as the LIR cannot hold more

than a /20 IPv4, must document their IPv6 deployment and has not

transferred any IPv4 address space before.

STATUS: Discussion Phase

WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: 
address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>


DEADLINE: 13 May 2016

FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05


to be introduced a definition that includes in the " has not

transferred any IPv4 address space before" list the LIR that 
transferred a prefix to an other LIR if this prefix was allocated to 
the receiving LIR when it was not the RIPE NCC member/LIR.


If I understand well your point this is already a requirement in 
2015-05. Please have a look to the full proposal at 
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
point [...] "3.1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space to 
another LIR, a member of another RIR, or an End User." [...]



2. explain pls what does it signify


The latest version of the proposal suggests several requirements, such 
as the LIR cannot hold more than a /20 IPv4



cannot hold more then /20 unused ?

Doesn't matter if the /20 is used or not. With current text of the 
2015-05 if an LIR already holds up to a /20 could not request any 
additional allocation from available pool outside 185/8.

If he didn't request a last /22 from 185/8 he can request it at any time.
Feel free to give the list your opinion about supporting 2015-05 or not.

thank you for your interest
kind regards
Riccardo






Best Regards,


-

Sergiu IANCIUC

SC ITNS.NET SRL


MD-2068, Moldova

or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1

tel.: +373 22 877 877

fax : +373 22 44 11 73

mobile: +373 690 22 111

url: http://www.itns.md


Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to...





Saturday, April 30, 2016, 6:41:04 PM, you wrote:





Hi Sergiu,


thank you for your reply. I don't get if you disagree with current 
policy or proposed one.


Anyway:

The LIR that assisgned or allocated  the first /22 to your current new 
LIR can transfert the space once 24 months are passed.


This is the holding time before a transfert can take place standing on 
current policies.


2015-05 policy proposal won't change this aspect.


kind regards

Riccardo



Il 30/04/2016 11:29, Sergiu IANCIUC ha scritto:

salut Riccardo,


I do not totally agree with you.. and I explain why.


you are talking about the case in the future.. but I give an actual 
example..



2 years ago my company has an allocated prefix from a LIR. After 1 
year we asked additional resources and had a negative response because 
of the RIPE Policy limitations. after the next year the situation was 
the same and to receive an additional prefix we became LIR. Now, pls 
answer... why to not permit transfer from the old LIR to the new one 
if they agree on it and do it for ensure the new LIR in continuity of 
the prefix use (all this with condition that this prefix was allocated 
by the old LIR when the new LIR has the status OTHER).





Best Regards,


-

Sergiu IANCIUC

SC ITNS.NET SRL


MD-2068, Moldova

or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1

tel.: +373 22 877 877

fax : +373 22 44 11 73

mobile: +373 690 22 111

url: http://www.itns.md


Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to...





Saturday, April 30, 2016, 8:33:49 AM, you wrote:





Dear Sergiu,

about your example and its eventual realtionship with the proposal 
2015-05:


Company X would have not limit in receive address space as described 
in transfert or allocation policies.


The limit described in 2015-05 would be applied to the LIR that 
assigned space to Company X and, as described in your example, later 
transfered the space in Company X registry.


This LIR is supposed to not need address space as it moved it outside 
its registry so it would not be able to request an additional /22 
allocation from pool outside 185/8 standing on 2015-05 proposal



On the other hand if Company X after its sing up as a new LIR after 18 
months need more space and there is enough space outside 185/8  would 
be able to request an additional /22 standing on  2015-05 proposal. 
The LIR that offered the first /22 to Company X as  "assigned 
resource" could also request an additional /22 allocation if its 
registry is holding less than a /20 IPv4.



hope this help

regards

Riccardo

Re: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update

2016-04-30 Thread Riccardo Gori 

Hi Sergiu,

thank you for your reply. I don't get if you disagree with current 
policy or proposed one.

Anyway:
The LIR that assisgned or allocated  the first /22 to your current new 
LIR can transfert the space once 24 months are passed.
This is the holding time before a transfert can take place standing on 
current policies.

2015-05 policy proposal won't change this aspect.


kind regards

Riccardo


Il 30/04/2016 11:29, Sergiu IANCIUC ha scritto:
Re[2]: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy 
Proposals - April Update


salut Riccardo,


I do not totally agree with you.. and I explain why.


you are talking about the case in the future.. but I give an actual 
example..



2 years ago my company has an allocated prefix from a LIR. After 1 
year we asked additional resources and had a negative response because 
of the RIPE Policy limitations. after the next year the situation was 
the same and to receive an additional prefix we became LIR. Now, pls 
answer... why to not permit transfer from the old LIR to the new one 
if they agree on it and do it for ensure the new LIR in continuity of 
the prefix use (all this with condition that this prefix was allocated 
by the old LIR when the new LIR has the status OTHER).





Best Regards,


-

Sergiu IANCIUC

SC ITNS.NET SRL


MD-2068, Moldova

or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1

tel.: +373 22 877 877

fax : +373 22 44 11 73

mobile: +373 690 22 111

url: http://www.itns.md


Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to...





Saturday, April 30, 2016, 8:33:49 AM, you wrote:





Dear Sergiu,

about your example and its eventual realtionship with the proposal 
2015-05:


Company X would have not limit in receive address space as described 
in transfert or allocation policies.


The limit described in 2015-05 would be applied to the LIR that 
assigned space to Company X and, as described in your example, later 
transfered the space in Company X registry.


This LIR is supposed to not need address space as it moved it outside 
its registry so it would not be able to request an additional /22 
allocation from pool outside 185/8 standing on 2015-05 proposal



On the other hand if Company X after its sing up as a new LIR after 18 
months need more space and there is enough space outside 185/8  would 
be able to request an additional /22 standing on  2015-05 proposal. 
The LIR that offered the first /22 to Company X as  "assigned 
resource" could also request an additional /22 allocation if its 
registry is holding less than a /20 IPv4.



hope this help

regards

Riccardo


Il 29/04/2016 10:38, Sergiu IANCIUC ha scritto:

hello,


PLS, take in consideration the situation


Company  X  has  a  /22 from its LIR. The LIR can not offer more IPv4

spaces   and the Company X becomes a LIR to satisfy its needs. Now, it

is logical that the LIR (if agreed between these 2 LIRs) transfers the

space  allocated  to the Company X (now the new LIR) AND THIS have to

not be the part from the policy -


"requirements,  such  as  the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address

space before."


What are you thinking about?



Best Regards,



-

Sergiu IANCIUC

SC ITNS.NET SRL



MD-2068, Moldova

or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1

tel.: +373 22 877 877

fax : +373 22 44 11 73

mobile: +373 690 22 111

url: http://www.itns.md



Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to...









This is a forwarded message

From: Marco Schmidt <mschm...@ripe.net> <mailto:mschm...@ripe.net>

To: ncc-annou...@ripe.net <mailto:ncc-annou...@ripe.net>

Date: Friday, April 29, 2016, 11:18:23 AM

Subject: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update



===8<==Original message text===

Dear colleagues,


Here is our monthly overview of open policy proposals and their stage in

the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP).


If you wish to join the discussion about a particular proposal, please

do so on the relevant working group mailing list.


Proposals Open for Discussion:

2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"


Proposals Awaiting Input:

2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies"

2016-01, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy"



Proposal Overviews:


PROPOSAL: 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"

OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4

allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The latest version of the

proposal suggests several requirements, such as the LIR cannot hold more

than a /20 IPv4, must document their IPv6 deployment and has not

transferred any IPv4 address space before.

STATUS: Discussion Phase

WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: 
address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>


DEADLINE: 13 May 2016

FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05


=


The follow

Re: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update

2016-04-29 Thread Riccardo Gori 

Dear Sergiu,

about your example and its eventual realtionship with the proposal 2015-05:
Company X would have not limit in receive address space as described in 
transfert or allocation policies.
The limit described in 2015-05 would be applied to the LIR that assigned 
space to Company X and, as described in your example, later transfered 
the space in Company X registry.
This LIR is supposed to not need address space as it moved it outside 
its registry so it would not be able to request an additional /22 
allocation from pool outside 185/8 standing on 2015-05 proposal


On the other hand if Company X after its sing up as a new LIR after 18 
months need more space and there is enough space outside 185/8 would be 
able to request an additional /22 standing on  2015-05 proposal. The LIR 
that offered the first /22 to Company X as "assigned resource" could 
also request an additional /22 allocation if its registry is holding 
less than a /20 IPv4.


hope this help

regards

Riccardo


Il 29/04/2016 10:38, Sergiu IANCIUC ha scritto:

hello,

PLS, take in consideration the situation

Company  X  has  a  /22 from its LIR. The LIR can not offer more IPv4
spaces   and the Company X becomes a LIR to satisfy its needs. Now, it
is logical that the LIR (if agreed between these 2 LIRs) transfers the
space  allocated  to the Company X (now the new LIR) AND THIS have to
not be the part from the policy -

"requirements,  such  as  the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address
space before."

What are you thinking about?


Best Regards,


-
Sergiu IANCIUC
SC ITNS.NET SRL


MD-2068, Moldova
or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1
tel.: +373 22 877 877
fax : +373 22 44 11 73
mobile: +373 690 22 111
url: http://www.itns.md


Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to...








This is a forwarded message
From: Marco Schmidt 
To: ncc-annou...@ripe.net
Date: Friday, April 29, 2016, 11:18:23 AM
Subject: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update


===8<==Original message text===
Dear colleagues,

Here is our monthly overview of open policy proposals and their stage in
the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP).

If you wish to join the discussion about a particular proposal, please
do so on the relevant working group mailing list.

Proposals Open for Discussion:
2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"

Proposals Awaiting Input:
2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies"
2016-01, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy"


Proposal Overviews:

PROPOSAL: 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"
OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4
allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The latest version of the
proposal suggests several requirements, such as the LIR cannot hold more
than a /20 IPv4, must document their IPv6 deployment and has not
transferred any IPv4 address space before.
STATUS: Discussion Phase
WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
DEADLINE: 13 May 2016
FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05

=

The following proposals are awaiting input before they can go any
further in the PDP.

PROPOSAL: 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies"
OVERVIEW: Aims to create a single transfer policy with all relevant
information on the transfer of Internet number resources, replacing text
in several RIPE Policies. The proposal also introduces a 24-month
holding period for IPv4 addresses and 16-bit ASNs after any change of
holdership.
RIPE NCC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Includes the point how the 24-month holding
period for scarce resources will be applied.
STATUS: Review Phase – Awaiting decision from working group chair
FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04

PROPOSAL: 2016-01, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the
Abuse-c Policy"
OVERVIEW: Aims for a mandatory abuse contact for Legacy Internet
Resource holders in the RIPE Database.
STATUS: Discussion Phase – Awaiting decision from proposer
FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-01


The RIPE NCC provides an overview of current RIPE Policy Proposals on
www.ripe.net:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-proposals

We look forward to your involvement in the PDP.

Kind regards,

Marco Schmidt
RIPE Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC



===8<===End of original message text===






--

Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: rg...@wirem.net
Mobile:  +39 339 8925947
Mobile:  +34 602 009 437
Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943

WIREM Fiber Revolution
Net-IT s.r.l.
Via Cesare Montanari, 2
47521 Cesena (FC)
Tel +39 0547 1955485
Fax +39 0547 1950285


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential