<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Il 16/06/2016 17:39, Nick Hilliard ha
scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5762C838.8080008@foobar.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Remco van Mook wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Explicitly states that the current IPv4 allocation policy applies to
all available IPv4 address space held by the RIPE NCC that has not
been reserved or marked to be returned to IANA
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
This is probably useful. It would also probably be useful to define a
term to replace the name "last /8" so that it can be referred to
specifically in the policy documentation, e.g. "the remaining
unallocated ipv4 pool" or something along those lines. Totally not as
catchy as "the last /8", but sadly that is the nature of policy.</pre>
</blockquote>
I agree too this can be useful. I think even Jim can agree. We had a
quick chat about it in Copenhagen.<br>
I even wrote apwg chair about a new proposal simply add this
clarification but stopped since Marco noticed was already in this
unacceptable 2016-03.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5762C838.8080008@foobar.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Adds a consideration to the IPv4 allocation policy that the LIR
should conserve whole or part of their final /22 allocation for
interoperability purposes
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Neutral on this. People will do what they are going to do, even if it's
short-sighted.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Bans transfers of final /22 allocations
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Changes the “status”field in the RIPE Database to reflect the
transferability of an INETNUM
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I'm against this because it conflicts with the core purpose of the RIPE
registry, which is to ensure accurate registration of resources.
Formally banning transfers will not stop transfers; it will only stop
those transfers from being registered which will lead to inaccurate
registry information.
Overall, I am against the core proposal, namely banning transfers from
the remaining unallocated ipv4 pool.</pre>
</blockquote>
completely agree<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5762C838.8080008@foobar.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Nick
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<pre>Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rgori@wirem.net">rgori@wirem.net</a>
Mobile: +39 339 8925947
Mobile: +34 602 009 437
Profile: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943">https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943</a>
</pre>
<img src="cid:part1.3105BA40.1AB6E519@wirem.net" width="200">
<pre>WIREM Fiber Revolution
Net-IT s.r.l.
Via Cesare Montanari, 2
47521 Cesena (FC)
Tel +39 0547 1955485
Fax +39 0547 1950285
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re-
plying to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@wirem.net">info@wirem.net</a>
Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
</pre>
</div>
</body>
</html>