This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alexander Leefmann
alex at leefmann.com
Wed Apr 4 02:18:24 CEST 2012
Dear working group, > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 30 April 2012. > --> a) I don't like the idea, that this proposal tries to allow smaller networks then the minimum /21 (for the last /8 then /22) allocations to be transferred into the RIPE NCC region. As some may know there is a "marketplace" for IPv4 allocations in the LIR portal right now. On this marketplace the minimum size of a allocation to transfer is /21. I would strongly recommend not to de-aggregate allocations any further. On the other way if the author of the proposal can explain why she choose a /24 as minimum transfer size I would like to hear her reasons for that and maybe why not a /25 - yes I am aware of the "common sense" of filtering. --> c) Why would someone like to change the requirements a RIPE NCC member needs to fulfill to get an allocation? In other words I would like to read something like "the recipient must be able to explain the need of this allocation and will use a minimum of 50% of it for it's own services or businesses". To be honest when reading "[...]will not be sold within 15 months[...] I get the idea of making a business out of IPv4. I am sure that the author does mean something else and I wold love to hear her explanation of this wording. In general I like the idea of transferring IPv4 allocation into RIR regions where there is a good need of this resources. BUT I don't like the idea of bringing policies in position to use the exhaustion of IPv4 as a business. And since the whole proposal with words like "sell" sounds like a business plan. RIRs give internet ressources based on needs not on price tags. If we start to official sell resources RIRs will become money driven then community driven. Again I believe that the author of the proposal wasn't thinking of money when writing this idea down and can now explain to me why I am a paranoid. Thank you all for your attention. Best regards -- Alex
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]