Re: [sig-policy] prop-050-v002: IPv4 address transfers
> > I think these conditions are not clear that transfer part of address
> > block is allowed.
> > For example, an entity that have /16 can transfer /17 to another
> > entity
> > or entity should transfer whole of /16.
> The proposal speaks of the transfer of address blocks. It makes no
> mention of allocations. Isn't it reasonably clear that a block being
> transfered can be a subnet of an allocation that has been made to the
> transferring entity? There is no wording in the proposal restricting
> transfers to address blocks aligned with complete APNC allocations.
I'm completely understood.
I think there is discrepancy in interpretation from culturally different
background. Because many japanese entitiy thinks "no wording for
restricting something" does not means "we can do something".
Thank you for your explanation!
"No caffeine, No work."
Shin Shirahata <null at null dot nu> / <true at sfc.wide dot ad dot jp>