Hi! On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
I support this proposal, provided I see satisfactory clarifications according to the below. :) 1) I note that the proposal specifically does not address transfers between entities under contract with the RIPE NCC. Am I correct in concluding the above and following? That this proposal does not affect or impede the transfer of an IPv4 resource from entity X to Y, while keeping the RIPE registry accurate, in any way? This is a strong and vital function of RIPE NCC's registry function as we go into the darkness IMO. I.e.., that this only addresses resource holders who specifically chooses to return resources to the RIPE NCC without any other party involved? While I cannot support a policy proposal which would damage the RIPE NCC registry in such a way, I don't think this is the intention, but I'd like to make it dead certain! 2) I'd also like a clarification regarding clause 3b: "b. Minimum allocation sizes for the relevant /8 blocks will be updated if necessary." Updated to what? It is not explicitly defined. Is this intentional or not? I see two ways to read this: a) The policy proposal intends to declare that address blocks returned to RIPE that are to be handed out according to LIR's without such an assignment according to clause 1 (in other words, assignments by way of clause 3a), shall have the same fixed assignment size as those in clause 1, i.e. that of a /22. b) The policy proposal intends to declare that the fixed assignment size, /22, in clause 1 can "be updated if necessary", i.e be changed to something else, likely/presumably longer? Either is fine with me, but I think it's a bit too ambiguous right now. Thank you, Regards, Martin