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

thank you for fast feedback >>>the RIPE NCC and Geoff Huston, and both independently have shown that the pool has an expected remaining lifetime of 4 to 4.5 years last 5mln will be enough for 2 3 years. and rest 14mln for much more from now. aprox 10 years or more. i dont agree with numbers.

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

Greetings! As additional information for oppose this proposal I would like to say next: 1) RIPE has reserved space/free pool that it's also will be used under current polices for LIRs, there are a lot of space in it. And those space will be used for new LIRs. You can see that it will be enough

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

Hi, > > I've heared this story over and over. Let's protect the pool, let's not > waste it and now, after 4 years the pool is almost the same size. > > The only reason that the pool is the size it is is because we received > some last scraps from IANA. The number of addresses coming from IANA

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

> On 20 Oct 2016, at 10:42, Plesa Niculae wrote: > > Hi Steffann, > > I strongly believe that we should have this conversation public. You switch > it to private, for the reason I don’t understand, because we have nothing to > hide and nobody to protect, I kindly ask you

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

Hi Ciprian, > I've heared this story over and over. Let's protect the pool, let's not waste > it and now, after 4 years the pool is almost the same size. The only reason that the pool is the size it is is because we received some last scraps from IANA. The number of addresses coming from IANA

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

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Arash, > > > If old businesses depend on selling IPv4 address to new comers and now > > looking to put some more value on their old blocks, their strategy should > > not be supported by 2016-03. > > I'm sorry, but

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

Hi Arash, > I understand your point, but this already happened with other RIRs and they > have no "cheap" pool to fulfil new requests, what happened them and to the > prices in their region? Do we have many intra-RIR transfers from RIPE region > to other RIRs today? Good question. I'm sure the

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

Sorry, bad auto correct: > [...] need to come up with arguments and valid training That should be "reasoning" > that can be discussed. Your message only contains ad hominem attacks and wild > and inaccurate statements and is therefore for useful That should be "not useful" > for the policy

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

Hi, > Yes, thanks to old members who didn’t care about the future of others and > made this mess. Please read my previous post. > Thanks to members like http://ipv4.stil.dk and many many more who requested > huge amount of IP space without a real need, now selling them for profit. > > Thanks

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

> On 23 Oct 2016, at 01:31, Arash Naderpour wrote: > > Luckily we still have an /8 in RIPE (and thanks to the old community members > for that), but 2016-03 cannot make that much change on draining rate. And I > don't think that the pool is that much drained by traders.

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

wirem.net>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy) Hi Arash, > If old businesses depend on selling IPv4 address to new comers and now > looking to put some more value on their old bloc

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

Hi Arash, > If old businesses depend on selling IPv4 address to new comers and now > looking to put some more value on their old blocks, their strategy should > not be supported by 2016-03. I'm sorry, but it's doing the opposite: it will make sure that the remaining pool is not drained by

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

To: Riccardo Gori <rg...@wirem.net> Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy) Hi, > I think you are missing that LIRs before 09/2012 are sitting on unused space. Not me, not us LIR afte

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

Hi Mikael, Hi Sander, Il 21/10/2016 16:45, Sander Steffann ha scritto: Hi Mikael, These post-2012 members would have ZERO IPv4 addresses from RIPE NCC if it wasn't for the Last /8 policy, we would have completely exhausted in 2012 without this policy. So they were only able to get

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

Hi Mikael, > These post-2012 members would have ZERO IPv4 addresses from RIPE NCC if it > wasn't for the Last /8 policy, we would have completely exhausted in 2012 > without this policy. > > So they were only able to get addresses at all because these addresses were > saved to be used under

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

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: a. the members that have received resources before 2012 + the members that can afford to 'buy' IP addresses allocated until recently (-2y from the date this policy proposal would be implemented) b. the members that have only received resources

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

I didn't have any popcorn but a few nachos were helpful to read the full e-mail. Very good and detailed explanations. +100 from me to Elvis which can also be read as -100 for the policy. For those of you who pretend working, it's friday so you can't trick anyone ;). You'd better read Elvis's

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

Hi, On 10/19/16 11:05 AM, Marco Schmidt wrote: The goal of this proposal is to ban transfers of allocations made under the final /8 policy. Also the proposal specifies what resources must be added to the RIPE NCC IPv4 available pool. I do not agree with this policy proposal and believe it

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

Hello Sergey, > If I am not wrong, the main idea of the NCC is to switch to IPv6 > networks. But it strongly tries to stretch this process. You seem to misunderstand how this works. It is the community that sets these policies, not the NCC. The RIPE NCC implements what the internet community

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

Hi. If I am not wrong, the main idea of the NCC is to switch to IPv6 networks. But it strongly tries to stretch this process. This proposal will create more problems than benefit. If you remember the NCC already restricted multi LIR accounts and then asked members to vote to cancel it. Moreover

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

Hi, I do not know if this is the right place. If not please direct me to the proper location to "vote" for this proposal. I support this proposal and thus: I say +1 for the proposal. With kind regards, Stefan van Westering SoftTech Automatisering B.V. Op 20 okt. 2016 om 12:29 heeft Gert

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

Hi, On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:24:12PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > I oppose both policies. > > For 2015-04 it's obvious, a policy that is supposed to arrange my hair > nicer would make me bold. You either do a cosmetic reorganisation or > important changes which should never be added just like

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

On Thursday, October 20, 2016, Randy Bush wrote: > > If I would moderate the list I would remove people > > let's not > > Ok, I can be a hater too sometimes but I don't like it. > I lived under the communist time and I know how it is when a leader > > says something wrong but he

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

> If I would moderate the list I would remove people let's not > I lived under the communist time and I know how it is when a leader > says something wrong but he believes is right and a bunch of penguins > just sit in the room and applause. i assure you that this is not just from communist

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

Hi, Over the years I saw many "haters" which are against this business. I didn't invent it and the real money goes to the ones that got the resources for "free" and then seek to make a fortune out of it. There were people in the first years telling me that this business is illegal. Well, I guess

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

> I will vote the opposite of whatever IP brokers vote.Their view is > strictly commercial whereas I am not part of that subgroup. i understand your position. but my problems are up a couple of layers. we have based our community's financial viability on recruiting a lot of new members. while

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

I'll rephrase: I will vote the opposite of whatever IP brokers vote.  Their view is strictly commercial whereas I am not part of that subgroup. Better? Hank

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

I think the problem in the end is how we consider what is an public IP prefix. In my city (Madrid, Spain, if you have curiosity, welcome to the city hosting RIPE 73), we have taxis. A license to have a taxi is assigned for life and when the owner retires, he can sell it for whatever he wants

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

Hello As Nick said, unregistered transfer will become problem on updating "RIPE Database" and as you know the database is main reason of RIRs mission. Also IP is IP and it's now important it's on last /8 or not.All IPs owner should have same right to transfer/re-allocation. On 10/19/2016

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

On 19/10/2016 16:37, Ciprian Nica wrote: Gert, Whatever proposal(s) Ciprian supports considers my vote as a "-1". -Hank > The usual reply when somebody says something here is "shut up" and > "unsubscribe" ? Really ? I think I could talk more freely in Kremlin > than here. > > Yes, the noise is

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

I think these observations are more than reasonable thank you Nick regards Riccardo Il 19/10/2016 11:53, Nick Hilliard ha scritto: Marco Schmidt wrote: We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to before 17 November 2016. The purpose of the

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

-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy) I still oppose this proposal. Rationale: 1) It creates yet another class of address space when the goal should be to have only one class. 2) It is potentially harmful to the interests of both th

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

I still oppose this proposal. Rationale: 1) It creates yet another class of address space when the goal should be to have only one class. 2) It is potentially harmful to the interests of both the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC by forcing the establishment of an IPv4 "black market", something

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

Hi, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 05:10:15PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > I was refering to 2015-04 and I was wrong to accuse you of hypocrisy. I > understand now that you don't support the policy change which would "ban" > regular transfer after mergers. To clarify: I neither actively support (=

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

Hi, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 05:14:38PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > I appologize to Gert, once again. Thanks, apology accepted. So - can we please return to discussing policy, based on the current version of the proposals(!), now? :-) Gert Doering -- list member, no hats -- have you

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

Hi, I was refering to 2015-04 and I was wrong to accuse you of hypocrisy. I understand now that you don't support the policy change which would "ban" regular transfer after mergers. I like the policies as they are and 2015-04 would be great if it would only compact the policies and not bring

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

I accept the warning and I also found about Godwin today. Matbe I should have made a more appropriate comparison. I appologize to Gert, once again. Please take some action against poeple which attack me personally just because they don't like what I say. Or maybe my colour, sexual orientation or

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

Hi, > Op 19 okt. 2016, om 14:59 heeft Peter Hessler het > volgende geschreven: > > Ciprian > > You have invoked Nazis and Hitler in two different emails to this list. > > This is incredibly offensive, for so many reasons. Ok, this is indeed going too far. Time for an

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

Hi, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:28:25PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > I never said Gert did something that was against any policy. Probably he > never did such things. But he clearly took advantage of the merger & > acquisition procedure and now he tries to close it through the policy > 2015-04.

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

The usual reply when somebody says something here is "shut up" and "unsubscribe" ? Really ? I think I could talk more freely in Kremlin than here. Yes, the noise is what Gert did 2 years ago. Let's get over it and discuss what is really important. Please express your support for the two

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

Ciprian Nica, If you have a problem with someone, or claim someone is abusing something take it up with RIPE NCC. NOT THIS LIST! Can you please for now just shut up with your noise? Chair/RIPE NCC/whoever, can someone consider if there is reason to actual give Ciprian a warning and possible

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

+1 > El 19/10/2016, a las 14:27, Wolfgang Tremmel > escribió: > > >> On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:59, Gert Doering wrote: >> >> So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address >> policy WG. > > +1 > > I know Gert now for 15+

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

No, you are the one wasting my time and if anyone else has something to tell to me I'll be available in Madrid starting tomorrow. Please first read carefully and try to understand what I wrote. I never said Gert did something that was against any policy. Probably he never did such things. But he

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote: > > Guess it's a last resort when they see that they are running out of > arguments? And amazing that > some people have turned to "personal" attacks here rather than > discussing the policy at hand. > > > Either way -

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

I'am totally fine with Gert as WG chair. He represent the initial attitude of the RIPE NCC ("serving" the community) much more then the (few?) others on this list which provoke with their new commercial business plans based only on the one fact that IPv4 will run out and therefore could be

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

Ciprian, a simple inquiry with the search engine of your choice would have revealed there was a M process involved in the transaction below. Making false accusations is probably even worse then ad hominem attacks. Feel free to reply to me off-list or approach me in Madrid in case you intend to

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

> I guess we need the board of RIPE NCC to once in a while step up and > block things when > they see clear abuse. > Here is the fact: % Version 1 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255" % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-04-17 16:59 % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Jim Reid wrote: >> On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:18, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Gert Doering wrote: ... >>> So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the

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

Ciprian You have invoked Nazis and Hitler in two different emails to this list. This is incredibly offensive, for so many reasons. You need to calm down, and think very serious thoughts about your behaviour on this list. Nobody, and certainly NOT Gert or anyone else on a mailing list deserves

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

Anno domini 2016 Ciprian Nica scripsit: [...] > Yes, start praising people if that's the purpose of this list. Hitler was > also a very praised man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law Best Max

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

> Yes, start praising people if that's the purpose of this list. Hitler was > also a very praised man. Godwin! Rob

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

As I have mentioned before, getting a /22 only to sell it after a couple weeks shows that it was only requested in order to make some money and not for a real need. It's a small glitch that many took advantage of. Also the merger & acquisition policy at that time suited your interests very well

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

On 19/10/2016 14:59, Gert Doering wrote: > So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address > policy WG. As do I. -Hank > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair

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

> On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:59, Gert Doering wrote: > > So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address > policy WG. +1 I know Gert now for 15+ years and never doubted his integrity. And thanks for still doing the job - I imagine in 20+ years we all will

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

> On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:18, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: > >> So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address >> policy WG. > > Support. And thank you for doing a job that grows more and more > thankless by the day. +100. I’m stunned beyond

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

* Gert Doering [2016-10-19 14:03]: > So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address > policy WG. Support. And thank you for doing a job that grows more and more thankless by the day. Nothing else to add except that I will mark the day when we run out of

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

Greetings! Also -1. I think the current policy that prevents transfers for 24 months is more then enough. There no need to change anything and make live more complex, hard and worse. We already have problems with merges when ripe start to request registry updates and that makes merges between

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

* Gert Doering > I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address policy > WG. +1 Tore

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

] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: 19 October 2016 10:53 To: Marco Schmidt <mschm...@ripe.net> Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy) Marco Schmidt wrote: > We encourage you to read

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

Hi, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 02:34:40PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG > Chairs: did you abuse the last /8 or not ? Do you consider yourself a > neutral arbitrer or not ? Do you consider yourself the one that should be > judging

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

* Ciprian Nica [2016-10-19 13:36]: > I think this discussion should not be about the right of the majority or > about ignoring the minority. That is nazi thinking. We should discuss and > appreciate ideas to their value. [..] > What I have expressed are my opinions as

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

icy WG List <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy) I think this discussion should not be about the right of the majority or about ignoring the minority. That is nazi thinking. We sh

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

I think this discussion should not be about the right of the majority or about ignoring the minority. That is nazi thinking. We should discuss and appreciate ideas to their value. But my problem at this point is not with an idea being right or wrong but with the fact that you are not a fair

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

> Just for the record: part of the WG Chair's job is to judge the "roughness" > of consensus based on the amount of supporting and opposing voices - both > the number, and the quality of arguments have to be weighted (and to some > extent the person making a certain argument). > I'm certainly not

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

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 clarification. > > >

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

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 clarification. > Chair's job is not collecting vote but make sure all concerns have been > addressed

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

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 care about > it > >

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

Totally agree with Radu. -1 for this policy from me too. Ciprian On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 10:33, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > > Hi. > > > > It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 10:33, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > Hi. > > It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this proposal in any > versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own > reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things. Except that members

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

Hi All, -1 to this. I think the current policy that prevents tranfers for 24 months is enough. Regards, El 19/10/2016 a las 10:05, Marco Schmidt escribió: Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" have now been

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

Hi I still disagree changing the status of already allocated resources. -1 from me. Regards Patrick On 19.10.2016 10:05, Marco Schmidt wrote: Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" have now been published,

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

Hi, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:33:54AM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > It is obviously the 99??? of members want to withdraw this proposal in any > versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own > reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things. It would be

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

* Aleksey Bulgakov [2016-10-19 10:36]: > Hi. > > It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this proposal in any > versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own > reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things. Hi Aleksey,

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

Hi. It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this proposal in any versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things. 19 Окт 2016 г. 11:05 пользователь "Marco Schmidt" написал: > Dear