Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
If I understand the rationale correctly, the change essentially means that a LIR has more time to actually implement a use of a transferred block, than they have for a new block. I am a n00b at these matters, but I don't quite see why this is an important change, and why as much as 24 months is necessary. Could someone please try to enlighten me? -- Jan
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
If I understand the rationale correctly, the change essentially means that a LIR has more time to actually implement a use of a transferred block, than they have for a new block.
I am a n00b at these matters, but I don't quite see why this is an important change, and why as much as 24 months is necessary.
Could someone please try to enlighten me?
wild guess... you got 24months to sell it to someone else? :-) -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no
On 10 May 2012 14:39, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled@gmail.com> wrote:
If I understand the rationale correctly, the change essentially means that a LIR has more time to actually implement a use of a transferred block, than they have for a new block.
I am a n00b at these matters, but I don't quite see why this is an important change, and why as much as 24 months is necessary.
24 months was the original time-period for networks to show their networking requirements before the run-out fairly proposals were introduced and it was an attempt to return to those number for transfers rather than have lots of little ones... J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
Hi, I may go off topic with this, but I have the strong feeling that more and more policies are coming up that regulate and re-regulate transfers (intra-RIR, inter-RIR) becoming more and more specific. I spent less than a year on this mailing list, and I do not know if this is business-as-usual or if this is new, but sometimes I fear we might one day over-regulate things. Maybe it's just me fearing bureaucracy :) Back to topic: The discussion will be interesting! At the moment I find 24 months way to long. best regards, Dan -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de
Hi Randy,
I fear we might one day over-regulate things. 1999.04.17
Perhaps you can explain a bit more by the cryptic post and 'guide the blind'. (ὁμηρεύω (homēreúō)) Erik (who didn't read any ancient Greek teachings) http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1999/1999-04-17.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer
On 10/05/2012 17:40, Dan Luedtke wrote:
is business-as-usual or if this is new, but sometimes I fear we might one day over-regulate things.
The question is not whether "we might", but how it will happen, who makes the rules and what rules we end up with. Over-regulation of the Internet is as sure an eventuality in future times as over-regulation of the telcos or over-regulation of the railways in previous eras. Nick
Over-regulation of the Internet is as sure an eventuality in future times as over-regulation of the telcos or over- regulation of the railways in previous eras.
Any large body suffers this, until such time as the regulation constricts the ability of the body in question to function. Followed by a big reboot of the whole process or in the case of governments a revolution. I think RIPE is a fair way off this however. I think in all likelihood we'll be living with over regulation for some time to come. The information transmitted in and with this email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not represent those of the Company. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer. Please also note, Vaioni filter incoming email for spam and inappropriate words. Unfortunately this does mean that sometimes genuine messages can be filtered out. Although we take measures to recover such messages, it must not be assumed that an email has been received by us and important communications should always be followed up by a phone call, fax or printed copy.
participants (8)
-
Dan Luedtke -
Erik Bais -
James Blessing -
Jan Ingvoldstad -
Matthew Hattersley -
Nick Hilliard -
Randy Bush -
Roger Jørgensen