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-
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
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, "Revi
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"
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
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
