In the past I have had problems with the transfer policies of APNIC NIRs not
matching APNIC’s own transfer policies.
When those differences prevented a transfer I asked APNIC to intervene by
imposing the (governing, to my mind) APNIC transfer policies on the
recalcitrant NIR.
And that was
Hi Owen,
RIPE continues to apply needs-tests to inter-regional transfers from ARIN. And
leasing out addresses is considered to be a valid justification. The authors
continue to mislead.
What problem does this policy seek to correct? Can it be stated in a single
sentence rather than book
able APNIC existing policies
are different in that respect than RIPE and ARIN ones. The proposal aims to
make sure that it is crystal clear, as I just mention in a previous reply.
Regards,Jordi@jordipalet
El 30 ago 2023, a las 13:46, Mike Burns escribió:Hi
Jordi,Thanks for the reply.I under
tification of the need.Working in a new
version following all the inputs. Tks!
Regards,Jordi@jordipalet
El 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns
escribió:div.zm_6758501352017711267_parse_-1937642368775720387 p.MsoNormal,
div.zm_6758501352017711267_parse_-1937642368775720387 li
to block and filter content, making it safer
for the community?
Regards,
Mike Burns
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of
Resources
This late edit retains false information regarding the situation at RIPE even
though it has been clarified on this list.
The new proposal states:
" Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and it is not acceptable as
a justification of the need."
And this is patently false. RIPE does
Hello,If we don't have a definition of Leasing we can't fully consider the
issues of enforcement, among other items.As with many things the devil is in
the details.Regards,MikeSent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Original message From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy
Date:
exist or not.
If anyone opposes it please take attention to provide arguments and suggestions
on how to address the issues raised about what the proposal really proposes.
Regards
Fernando
On 07/09/2022 14:12, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Fernando,
Do you understand my argument that smaller business
and Connectivity
and instead are leasing a asset they don't own.
Fernando
On 07/09/2022 12:39, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Fernando,
So your argument is that banning leasing actually helps smaller companies in
their quest for IPv4?
Are you aware that RIPE has allowed leasing for many years
into
the market.
Any form of IP leasing without a direct connection relationship to provide a
connectivity service makes it more expensive for smaller companies to get IP
addresses to operate.
Fernando
On 07/09/2022 11:15, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Jordi,
It’s plain you feel that we should do all
.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 16:05, "Mike Burns" mailto:m...@iptrading.com>
> escribió:
Hello,
Per Gaurav’s statement that “only those with millions of dollars can think of
getting ips”, this community should oppose this policy.
Because th
Hello,
Per Gaurav’s statement that “only those with millions of dollars can think of
getting ips”, this community should oppose this policy.
Because the only way small companies can afford to get ips today is by leasing
them. The same way the small company can’t afford to purchase a big
rds,
Sunny
APNIC Secretariat
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 22/8/22, 12:17,
nsensus. However, in my opinion the policy manual must be clear enough so
nobody can interpret that something is not allowed when actually is not.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 22/8/22, 12:17, "Mike Burns" mailto:m...@iptrading.com>
> escribió:
There are a num
on APNIC policies, even if this policy doesn't reach
consensus. However, in my opinion the policy manual must be clear enough so
nobody can interpret that something is not allowed when actually is not.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 22/8/22, 12:17, "Mike Burns"
on an operational network should logically be
accepted as justification, because does it really matter whose network they are
used on? Isn’t the salient point that they are in use?
I am against this policy.
Regards,
Mike Burns
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy
more reasonable.
Regards,
Mike
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:39 PM
To: Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com>
Cc: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+sigpol...@eintellegonetworks.asia>; Bertrand
Cherrier <b.cherr...@microlog
We brokered a sale of a 103 block when it was within policy to do so.
Now that buyer, who paid money for the block with the understanding that he
could resell it, has had the situation changed to his detriment by the new
restrictive policy.
I support the grandfathering-in of 103 blocks
ect allocations from LACNIC (not just
final /8) , but not to resales of prior transfers.
But APNIC is considering a waiting period only on the 103 block, that would be
inherently different from the other registries, so finding compatibility will
be limited in any case.
Rega
I support prop-118, but note that contrary to the proposal text, Lacnic has
allowed intra-regional transfers since March 14, 2016.
Regards,
Mike Burns
-Original Message-
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of chku
Sent
.
Regards,
Mike Burns
IPTrading
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Sumon Ahmed Sabir
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 5:45 AM
To: sig-pol...@apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
21 matches
Mail list logo
