[address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:42:53AM +0200, Tomasz ??l??ski GMAIL wrote:
> W dniu 2014-07-03 00:22, Elvis Daniel Velea pisze:
> 
> > I would say that it is only dangerous if you have never done business
> > before. You should never pay in advance for something that you have not
> > yet received. Various types of Escrow agreements or Bank Guarantee
> > Letters are used, usually, when an IPv4 allocation is transferred. These
> > are processes that do not involve the RIPE NCC but which make the
> > transfers happen. Brokers are happy to assist with these processes.
> 
> What do you say about situation: you bought, the transfers are made 
> successfully??????, you paid after transfers, and suddenly after 8-12 months 
> after transaction you see deletion and revert on the objects, because 
> RIPE says that they were sold by a cheater. RIPE is not trying to help, 
> they only said, that is because a due diligence process. My question is, 
> where was the due diligence *during* the approved transfer?

If the NCC approved the transfer, and months later takes the addresses
away without any fault on the side of the receiving party, I'd bring that
up before the board or before the RIPE arbiters.  This is not what should
happen (but without more background information, nobody on this mailing
list will be able to say more).


> > Any new LIR will receive a /22 allocation as long as they can justify
> > the use of at least one IP address. The policy is very simple in this
> > regard.
> 
> Again - this is not obvious. What about a situation that you are paying 
> for setting up a LIR and then you do not get allocation, even though you 
> show its need? And in the dispute you get the answer:
> "By signing the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement you only become a 
> member. The membership fee covers the membership alone. Whether you 
> receive an IP allocation is being separately reviewed."

This statement is fully correct.  The /22 allocation is not automatic, you
have to send in a request, and meet the criteria - which are not very many
these days ("must have an IPv6 allocation", and even that is being softened
to avoid a few corner cases).

Depending on the time this was sent, you might have failed to demonstrate
need (which was abandoned earlier this year, but that's a fairly recent
change), or not have requested an IPv6 allocation yet.

Again: bring it up to the arbiters.  That's what they are there for -
neutral oversight.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140703/39d641f4/attachment.sig>