You would do well to take some lessons in debate culture yourself. You're -not even too veiledly- accusing another member of abuse, something we have heard altogether too much of lately. As for 2015-04, I oppose it as it tries yet again to bring M&A under policy regulation (s. 2.2) which the community has no business doing. Further, I am fundamentally opposed to the tactic of including the unpalatable with the desirable. I would support 2015-04 if it restricted itself to collating transfer policy in one document without imposing further restrictions. rgds, Sascha Luck On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:45:01PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote:
What you say could be expressed (again it's a metaphor) like this:
If you're interested in swaying the opinion in your favour you would do well by avoiding arguing by using metaphors or colurful paraphrasing, and instead argue the individual items you apparently so very much disagree with.
As for the takeovers, it's not that I wouldn't get into details. My previous employer has acuired probably over 100 other companies. Every case was particular and some took years to integrate. You can not sell the IPs before integrating their network.
In all the situations, even when we know there was an agreement for acquisition of company X, it wasn't absorbed overnight. The process is complex and involves approvals from various authorities, integration of the network, migration of customers and in the end you can draw the line and mark as unused the as number, IPs, computers, etc.
You conveniently side-stepped answering the case I described. Note that I wrote "*solely* for the purpose of of getting a /22...". In that case there would be no customers to move or networks to merge. I would say it is incumbent upon you to justify that we should keep this loophole as wide as a truck in the policy.
The 24-month holding period puts a damper on this avenue of abuse against the intention of the last /8 policy, and would put a little bit more longevity into the availability of the resources under that policy. It may be that this diminishes your company's prospects of near-future income, to which I would say that basing your buisness on the abuse of something which is perceived as a common resource is perhaps not worthy of so much sympathy?
Regards,
- H�vard