[address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Correction: Final Minutes Re: DRAFT(?) RIPE 64 APWG Session Minutes
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com
Wed Oct 3 08:19:41 CEST 2012
Good morning, * LeaderTelecom B.V. >> So there will not be any requirement whatsoever on the receiving ISP to >> justify their need for the received block, in the way they would have if >> they had gone through a full transfer instead? > > Correct. Why not? I question the wisdom of abolishing the need-based mechanism for sub-allocations exclusively, when (to the best of my knowledge) all other mechanisms to obtain number resources in all other regions are need-based. > Just see how many transfers in other RIRs. This mechanism work not very good > for now. How come? In any case, if the transfer policy is broken somehow, why not fix it? Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Correction: Final Minutes Re: DRAFT(?) RIPE 64 APWG Session Minutes
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]