Ciprian:
I don't believe UK tax payers will be ok with their government giving up
100m Euro assets, that being said, market is the market, just like the land
in California 200 years ago are practically free while today might cost 10m
to get a small apartment in the bay area, it is the new reality
Hi Ciprian:
Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But at
least this time it was not random gmail address used by someone to hide
their identity. So I will responds:
Here is your example and my company happened to be the receivee to all of
three allocation you have me
Hi
See my reply below:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> Hi Lu,
>
> On 6/10/2015 11:50 AM, Lu Heng wrote:
> > Hi Ciprian:
> >
> > Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But
> at
> > least this time it
Hi Gert:
I am very much surprise with your reply.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:50:30AM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
> > Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and
> > not about in
Hi
It was definitely functional and announced.
But on the other hand, it come down to our business operation and I do not
feel it is the right place to share.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Ondřej Caletka
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Dne 10.6.2015 v 10:50 Lu Heng napsal(a):
> > My comp
kindly ask chair again to stop such discussion about me and my
company.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 6/10/2015 1:48 PM, Lu Heng wrote:
> > "Abuse" is not an opinion, it is an statement and accusation, and you
> are
> > mak
ut in to a policy discussion list,
ever again.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Ciprian, Lu,
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:14:56PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> > On 6/10/2015 1:48 PM, Lu Heng wrote:
> [..]
>
> I think enough has been said on both si
Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here:
This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG.
First of all, I support turn on moderation on this list.
secondly, I do feel there are two different kind of treatment here from one
of the Chair.
While my company information and false accus
rules defined here:
>
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-613
>
> And now please let us continue our businesses and stop attacking others.
> Thanks!
>
> Gert: although I am not always agreeing with what you think and say, I
> think you and Sander are doing a good
Hi
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Sebastian Wiesinger
wrote:
> * Lu Heng [2015-06-11 13:03]:
> > Hi
> >
> > I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more.
> >
> > *And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.*
>
> Yes y
bout it, I feel in this free speech world, I have all my
rights to do so.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Petr Umelov wrote:
> A chair is not a human, it is a thing :):):)
>
> 11.06.2015, 14:54, "Lu Heng" :
> > Hi
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Sebas
Hi
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2015, at 12:53, Lu Heng wrote:
>
> > No, I am not questioning his integrity,
>
> So please stop banging on about this. [BTW you're very wrong because you
> *are* questioning someone's integrity,
Hi Sascha:
Thanks for the link.
Yes, please consider appeal has been made, and I will expect responds from
WGCC and Chair of Ripe.
Thanks.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:15:51PM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
>
>> Same here, I feel
ould welcome some intervention from the RIPE chair now , if only to
> reinforce how inadequately some of us are behaving.
>
> I find it very complicated to intervene here, especially as Lu Heng is
> complaing about me - trying to stop this sort of posting can be easily
> interpre
Ask RIPE NCC going to routing level to check announcement might not be such
a good idea.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Garry Glendown wrote:
>
> >> I will readily admit that I can not come up with a text which prevents
> >> abuse _and_ allows for valid operational needs, though.
> > Indeed.
I see IPv4 and IPv6 like land in the real world, the remote land are very
cheap and the centre land are very expensive, however unless there is
enough incentives from the city planning, no body will move out of the city
center because of high housing price/high rent, especially business.
One thing
One correction to my last post "no provider today will be able provide end
customer IPv6 access only network"
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Lu Heng wrote:
> I see IPv4 and IPv6 like land in the real world, the remote land are very
> cheap and the centre land are very ex
Hi
I don't know what you mean by cernet2.
Cernet in China does provide IPv4 access as well.
But they charge IPv4 traffic and do not charge IPv6 traffic, so student use
IPv6 to download movies(in which makes high traffic volume).
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > One cor
n Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Lu Heng wrote:
> Hi
>
> I don't know what you mean by cernet2.
>
> Cernet in China does provide IPv4 access as well.
>
> But they charge IPv4 traffic and do not charge IPv6 traffic, so student
> use IPv6 to download movies(in which mak
I agree it is a guess, but also should be an easy estimation(not very
accure one but rough one) if we taking burning rate of past 36 month into
account. I think NCC can clearify this future.
On Tuesday, 20 October 2015, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
> Hi James, Gert,
>
> On 10/20/15 4:06 PM, Gert Do
On Tuesday, 20 October 2015, remco van mook wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:49 PM Elvis Daniel Velea > wrote:
>
>> Hi Remco,
>>
>> On 10/20/15 5:27 PM, Remco van Mook wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > (no hats)
>> >
>> > I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy
>
Just a little reminder, can we keep on the topic of this policy...
(I agree with remco, and I suggested before as well, certain basic common
sense of merderation are appreciated here)
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Frédéric wrote:
>
>
> Le 23/10/2015 16:04, David Monosov a écrit :
> > On 23/1
More flexible policy for better operation practice is really preferred in
all cases.
-Lu
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015, at 11:10, Gert Doering wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:02:07AM +0100, Christia
Hi
I have an policy question regarding Ripe policy before adoption of "no
need" policy.
We all know that before the no need policy, when Ripe makes an assignment,
while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid.
The question come to what the definition of need. Below I have few
examp
Hi Gert:
Thank you for insight and detailed reply.
(All the discussion below are about an latency policy element *need*, does
not imply current Ripe policy in anyway)
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 06:21:27PM +0100, h...@anytimechinese.com
Hi
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Hi Lu,
>
> > I have an policy question regarding Ripe policy before adoption of "no
> need" policy.
>
> I don't see the usefulness of second-guessing how obsolete policy would
> have been applied. Can you explain the relevance to curren
example to help explain, but my question are very very specific and not for
the beer time.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 08:33:22PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
> > Yes, for old folks here, things seems obvious, but I believe we
Hi Guys:
I don't want to be a*** here, but this is just like the example I have just
given...
And Valentin:
No, you can can not delete or cleanup archive in anyway, the only way is to
have legitimate reason(illegal content for example), and send an lawyer
letter to RIPE NCC to request take down
Hi
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 03/12/2015 19:56, Lu Heng wrote:
> > I am asking a very specific question to an very specific service example
> > here, the only way to be more specific would be naming people.
>
> you're asking a vague ques
about your subject "An
> interesting policy question".
>
> Best Regards,
> Valentin Panait
>
> On 12/03/2015 10:12 PM, Lu Heng wrote:
>
> Hi Guys:
>
> I don't want to be a*** here, but this is just like the example I have
> just given...
>
> And Valentin:
estion is more complex. But it seems removing one of the
> locations did not change *the need* for the assigned /24, so the answer
> to the question should be the same as the previous one.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Vladislav Potapov
>
> Ru.iiat
>
>
>
> *From:* address-
gt; I can fully understand why people have reservations about this discussion.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Remco
>
>
>
> On 04 Dec 2015, at 10:15 , Lu Heng wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Thanks Vladislav for the clear answer.
>
> And for the list, this is an answer I would l
Hi Sander:
Thanks for the reply and the discussion was started in one of the RIR
meetings, and I am just asking community view(not official in any way of
course) of this as part of globe view on the *need*, as it is an shared
concept for every RIR.
I think I have the answer I wanted here now and
Hi
(This will be my last post in the list about this topic)
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 10:42:18AM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
> > I can assure you it is not speculative(and I apologise if I give this
> > feeling in any
On Sunday 17 April 2016, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I seriously liking the idea of some APNIC colleagues "no more v4
> > policy from today on".
>
> that was my proposal. the sitting apnic address policy chair went into
> bureaucratic insanity and drowned it.
Hoesntly, I think it is best companion
On Sunday 17 April 2016, Randy Bush wrote:
> >>> I seriously liking the idea of some APNIC colleagues "no more v4
> >>> policy from today on".
> >> that was my proposal. the sitting apnic address policy chair went into
> >> bureaucratic insanity and drowned it.
> > Hoesntly, I think it is best c
On Sunday 17 April 2016, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> well, it is some years too late for it to go along with the last /8,
> >> policy unless you have a time machine. but it might mean we won't have
> >> to deal with the endless proposals to modify the last /8 policy which
> >> seem to come up every y
Hi
I think an more interesting break down would be the companies' business(e.g
the industry they are in)
As I understand, more and more end user are becoming LIR as their ISP
refuse to give them IP, therefore it fundamentally changed the
very definition of LIR.
The outbreak in the member mailing
Hi
On Wednesday 20 April 2016, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
> On 16.04.2016 19.00, Jim Reid wrote:
>
>> I actually said "This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee
>> the free pool would not survive 10 months. That is one of the reasons why I
>> oppose it.”
>>
> If I remember correctly w
Hi There:
Although it does sounds good idea consider how big the routing table has
become, but in practice, I guess would be very difficult, as there is no
way to prevent people spam them then return to RIPE NCC for a new one,
plus, with smaller allocation pool every day, the ability RIPE NCC woul
I believe it is an permenent solution to an temporary problem.
Think 5 years from now, after last /8 ran out, will we still care about it
anymore?
Don't fix something that will no longer exsit in a short time period.
On 19 October 2016 at 11:26, Aleksey Bulgakov
wrote:
> Ok. If it is better
Hi
On 19 October 2016 at 11:48, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:39:10AM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
> > I believe it is an permenent solution to an temporary problem.
> >
> > Think 5 years from now, after last /8 ran out, will we still
Hi
On 19 October 2016 at 12:18, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
> [..]
> > What I have said is one of the concern that have to be addressd with an
> > reasonable counter argument.
>
> Thanks for the clarifica
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 17:40 Jetten Raymond
wrote:
> Dear AP-WG,
>
> I Oppose this 2017-03 proposal,
>
> IPv6 has been around for decades, and "we" have failed to implement it in
> time. I see no point in rewarding laziness and yet trying to again give
> more time to seriously start to implement
Hi
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 09:42 Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 09:08:56AM +, Randy Bush wrote:
> > and i am less sure i want to strongly assert that the split still makes
> > sense. do the regional empires really improve the operators' life?
>
> For an regional Europ
Hi
What’s the difference between the below description and an inter-RIR
transfer policy?
And as current policy text, there is no restriction on using any of RIR
resource on globe level.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 20:28 Martin Huněk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Dne pondělí 26. března 2018 13:35:47 CEST, Staf
Hi
I think some people are off topic here, all I said was we should not treat
v4 and v6 differently, that's it.
If there are people like to treat two protocols differently, you are free
to express your view.
But anyway, this is really not a topic for this mailing list anyway, should
we stop here
47 matches
Mail list logo
