2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Dear colleagues, Regarding the [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies): The supposed purpose of the policy was to organise more efficiently, in a single document, the rules regarding transfer of resources but it brings a restriction which has not been properly analysed and debated. In my opinion there are many cases when two ISPs would merge. Due to the restructuring after the merger it is likely that the IPs could be used more efficiently and the resulting company would have spare resources that could be transferred like one of the AS numbers and maybe some IPs. If both companies have received the IPs and AS numbers many years ago, why should they not be able to transfer the resulting unused resources after the merger ? There is no logical point in that. Maybe there would not result some unused IPs but at least there is a 100% certainty that one of the AS numbers would become useless. This policy would force the company to keep it for 24 months just because they did a merger ? In today’s market it's quite common that smaller ISPs get acquired by larger ones and the policy would impose some restrictions which makes no sense. I have more observations regarding other non-sense and incorrect terms of the proposed policy, but first I really want to see if Marco, together with the RIPE team, really want to discuss and make modifications according the general good and common sense or everybody wants to pass this policy, like most of them, with no real answers to the problems raised. We will pass this policy in fanfare sounds, without any modifications, like the most of the past ones, or we will look seriously at members observations and change the policy accordingly? Best Regards Niculae Plesa
I totally agree with the AS number situation. When I worked for RCS&RDS we acquired many companies and although we kept some AS numbers, it really makes no sense in putting a 24 months lock on them. Ciprian On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Plesa Niculae <niculae@plesa.ro> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Regarding the [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies):
The supposed purpose of the policy was to organise more efficiently, in a single document, the rules regarding transfer of resources but it brings a restriction which has not been properly analysed and debated. In my opinion there are many cases when two ISPs would merge. Due to the restructuring after the merger it is likely that the IPs could be used more efficiently and the resulting company would have spare resources that could be transferred like one of the AS numbers and maybe some IPs. If both companies have received the IPs and AS numbers many years ago, why should they not be able to transfer the resulting unused resources after the merger ? There is no logical point in that. Maybe there would not result some unused IPs but at least there is a 100% certainty that one of the AS numbers would become useless. This policy would force the company to keep it for 24 months just because they did a merger ? In today’s market it's quite common that smaller ISPs get acquired by larger ones and the policy would impose some restrictions which makes no sense.
I have more observations regarding other non-sense and incorrect terms of the proposed policy, but first I really want to see if Marco, together with the RIPE team, really want to discuss and make modifications according the general good and common sense or everybody wants to pass this policy, like most of them, with no real answers to the problems raised. We will pass this policy in fanfare sounds, without any modifications, like the most of the past ones, or we will look seriously at members observations and change the policy accordingly?
Best Regards Niculae Plesa
Agree with AS numbers. There should not be any limit. Yuri On 19.10.2016 13:36, Ciprian Nica wrote:
I totally agree with the AS number situation. When I worked for RCS&RDS we acquired many companies and although we kept some AS numbers, it really makes no sense in putting a 24 months lock on them.
Ciprian
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Plesa Niculae <niculae@plesa.ro <mailto:niculae@plesa.ro>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Regarding the [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies):
The supposed purpose of the policy was to organise more efficiently, in a single document, the rules regarding transfer of resources but it brings a restriction which has not been properly analysed and debated. In my opinion there are many cases when two ISPs would merge. Due to the restructuring after the merger it is likely that the IPs could be used more efficiently and the resulting company would have spare resources that could be transferred like one of the AS numbers and maybe some IPs. If both companies have received the IPs and AS numbers many years ago, why should they not be able to transfer the resulting unused resources after the merger ? There is no logical point in that. Maybe there would not result some unused IPs but at least there is a 100% certainty that one of the AS numbers would become useless. This policy would force the company to keep it for 24 months just because they did a merger ? In today’s market it's quite common that smaller ISPs get acquired by larger ones and the policy would impose some restrictions which makes no sense.
I have more observations regarding other non-sense and incorrect terms of the proposed policy, but first I really want to see if Marco, together with the RIPE team, really want to discuss and make modifications according the general good and common sense or everybody wants to pass this policy, like most of them, with no real answers to the problems raised. We will pass this policy in fanfare sounds, without any modifications, like the most of the past ones, or we will look seriously at members observations and change the policy accordingly?
Best Regards Niculae Plesa
Il giorno 19 ott 2016, alle ore 13:23, NTX NOC <noc@ntx.ru> ha scritto:
Agree with AS numbers. There should not be any limit.
Yuri
On 19.10.2016 13:36, Ciprian Nica wrote: I totally agree with the AS number situation. When I worked for RCS&RDS we acquired many companies and although we kept some AS numbers, it really makes no sense in putting a 24 months lock on them.
Ciprian
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Plesa Niculae <niculae@plesa.ro <mailto:niculae@plesa.ro>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Regarding the [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies):
The supposed purpose of the policy was to organise more efficiently, in a single document, the rules regarding transfer of resources but it brings a restriction which has not been properly analysed and debated. In my opinion there are many cases when two ISPs would merge. Due to the restructuring after the merger it is likely that the IPs could be used more efficiently and the resulting company would have spare resources that could be transferred like one of the AS numbers and maybe some IPs. If both companies have received the IPs and AS numbers many years ago, why should they not be able to transfer the resulting unused resources after the merger ? There is no logical point in that. Maybe there would not result some unused IPs but at least there is a 100% certainty that one of the AS numbers would become useless. This policy would force the company to keep it for 24 months just because they did a merger ? In today’s market it's quite common that smaller ISPs get acquired by larger ones and the policy would impose some restrictions which makes no sense.
I have more observations regarding other non-sense and incorrect terms of the proposed policy, but first I really want to see if Marco, together with the RIPE team, really want to discuss and make modifications according the general good and common sense or everybody wants to pass this policy, like most of them, with no real answers to the problems raised. We will pass this policy in fanfare sounds, without any modifications, like the most of the past ones, or we will look seriously at members observations and change the policy accordingly?
Best Regards Niculae Plesa
Check Point Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e in ogni eventuale documento allegato sono riservate, potrebbero essere coperte dal segreto professionale e possono essere utilizzate esclusivamente dal destinatario sopra indicato. Ogni divulgazione o copia di questo messaggio o dei suoi eventuali allegati non autorizzata, cosi' come ogni uso o
Totally Agree with Niculae divulgazione delle informazioni negli stessi contenute, sono da considerarsi come vietate e potrebbero costituire violazione delle normative ivi applicabili. Se ricevete questo messaggio per errore Vi preghiamo di volerci avvertire immediatamente tramite posta elettronica o telefonicamente e di cancellare il presente messaggio e ogni documento ad esso allegato dal Vostro sistema. Vi informiamo che svolgiamo ogni attivita' finalizzata a proteggere la nostra rete da virus e non ci assumiamo alcuna responsabilita' in ordine a possibili virus che possano essere trasferiti con la presente mail. Grazie. ***************** The information contained in this e-mail and in any file transmitted with it is confidential and may be privileged for the sole use of the designated addressee. Any unauthorized dissemination or copying of this e-mail or its attachments, and any use or disclosure of any information contained in them, is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. If you are not the designated addressee, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and delete this e-mail and any file transmitted with it from your system. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses and take no responsibility for any computer virus which might be transferred by way of this e-mail. Thank you.
participants (4)
-
Ciprian Nica -
NTX NOC -
Palumbo Flavio -
Plesa Niculae