Well, that sounds to me you are siding with people not principle? your long sentence put in short, I like him but I don't like you so I won't reply to you?
You did already and I guess this is an policy discussion list not political war ground. Publically declear I am a trouble maker please provide evidence otherwise I see it as public defamation. On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Skeeve Stevens <ske...@v4now.com> wrote: > Lu, > > Owen is a veteran of this industry, and someone who many respect. I > appreciate his posting as there are always people trying to game policy and > and also far worse. I trust Owen and will be heeding his advice on this > matter. > > I have now reviewed your postings to most of the other policy lists, and > you seem like a trouble maker. I won't bother debating policy with you and > tie up APNIC lists uneccessarily. > > > ...Skeeve > > *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* > *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service > ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/v4now ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> > linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase: > https://keybase.io/skeeve > > > IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> Lu, as I stated elsewhere, I did read your post, but I do not trust you. >> >> Owen >> >> On Dec 6, 2015, at 01:13 , h...@anytimechinese.com wrote: >> >> I have explained the reasoning of asking it fairly well in one of the >> list and Owen just didn't read it and speculate my action, fair warning, >> read to Owen, do not speculate people's action on public space without >> ground.l, especially such action was already explained publicly. >> >> On 6 Dec 2015, at 5:06 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> >> Fair warning, Lu asked the identical question on the ARIN list and (I >> presume the RIPE list since he left RIPE in all >> the key places in the one he posted to ARIN). >> >> It seems to me that he may be doing some form of registry policy shopping. >> >> Owen >> >> On Dec 4, 2015, at 06:07 , Skeeve Stevens <ske...@v4now.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Lu, >> >> 1st: I would say no. There are no followups after allocation and there >> should not be due to the many complication issues that can happen. >> >> 2nd: I would say no. The changing of network infrastructure should NOT >> invalidate the original request which is approved. >> >> >> >> ...Skeeve >> >> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* >> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service >> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com >> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve >> facebook.com/v4now ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> >> linkedin.com/in/skeeve >> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase: >> https://keybase.io/skeeve >> >> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers >> >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Lu Heng <h...@anytimechinese.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> I have an policy question regarding the "need". >>> >>> We all know when RIR makes approves assignment LIR made if it is beyond >>> LIR's assignment window, while the "need" has changed, the assignment >>> become invalid. >>> >>> The question come to what the definition of need, as a young people >>> here, I am a bit confused, Below I have few examples, please enlighten me >>> if anyone has an thought about it. >>> >>> First one: >>> >>> Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, >>> RIR makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under >>> condition that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his >>> infrastructure to location B, but still providing same service to same >>> customer, does the company's action need to be notified to RIR? And does >>> this action considered invalid the original assignment? >>> >>> Second one: >>> >>> Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, >>> and has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the >>> company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 >>> location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to >>> RIR? >>> >>> So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as >>> the service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of >>> original justification material was provided, if was the later, then does >>> it imply that anything, including location of the infrastructure, upstream >>> providers etc has changed due to operational need, it will be considered as >>> change of purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR? >>> >>> What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then? >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Kind regards. >>> Lu >>> >>> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>> * >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sig-policy mailing list >>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>> >>> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> >> >> >> > -- -- Kind regards. Lu
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
