[address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Sun Jul 14 22:57:07 CEST 2019
hi carlos, > My understanding (and i'm not a lawyer, so i won't risk any comments > about liability) is that the RIPE NCC can't force anything to a Legacy > Resource Holder, outside the established contract for services > provision. That one, also states the possibility for the RIPE NCC to > stop providing said services -- but this doesn't mean > de-registering. In practice, it means no access to the Certification > service. Not sure about reverse DNS, though... the actual paperwork does, well did two months ago, include an *option* for the ncc to stop providing reverse dns. i suspect they would not exercise the option except in egregious circumstances. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]