[address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05

Hello Per,

That would mean that ALL Ip addresses could be taken to another
provider/network and that it works. For example if a client has a /24 PA and
they go to another network they need the option to take it with them. At
least if you compare it to phone number portability in the Netherlands.

This also means that if someone uses a /30 (a server with 2 or 3 SSL
certificates for example) and they go to another network they can take the
IP addresses (even with a /32). And other networks have to be required to
route traffic to them or the old network has to route all traffic for that
range to the new network.

Currently this is not the case and without changing rules (even within the
RIPE policy) it won't change probably. I would be happy to see something in
the RIPE policy/rules that it works like the number portability for IP
addresses, because RIPE NCC follows Dutch laws (and it is mentioned in new
contracts for as far as I know) all network operators that have IP addresses
from RIPE will also work like this. This means that filtering anything less
than a /24 IPv4 is impossible (filtering by route objects or per IP is
possible).

It also creates "cheap" options for networks to get IP addresses from other
networks if they want. Getting co location in another network and getting as
much IP addresses as possible with that network and only using it for 1 or 3
months is enough to transfer the IP addresses. This is something that
shouldn't be possible if you ask me.

With kind regards,

Mark Scholten

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Per Heldal
Sent: zaterdag 25 juli 2009 21:29
To: Nick Hilliard
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy
Proposal 2006-05

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:12:45 +0100
Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie> wrote:

> Provider independent addressing also puts the balance of negotiating
> power in the hands of the customer, rather than the provider.  If
> they don't like the pricing, they can just go elsewhere and hey, it's
> really easy.
> 

RIR policies is not the right tool to regulate ISP behaviour.

Market regulators (national and international) should define the
requirements and make it mandatory for ISPs to ease the transition from
an address-block to another, prevent DNS hostage-taking etc. It's very
similar to what's already done to provide number portability in mobile
markets.


//per