[address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 23.04.2015 15:39, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
> 
> If we suppose having multiple /22 per LIR is abusing then main
> "abuser" is RIPE NCC since RIPE NCC makes transfers and LIR merging
> allowing to receive second /22 etc.
> 

So you agree my initial reply that actually the change does not go far
enough, it'd be better to completely prohibited selling IP (v4) and
instead enforce withdrawing of not announced IP-Space aand returning
it into the pool?

That way I am pretty sure we could quickly loosen the current /8
policy and return to a policy allowing requests of more then one /22
if need is shown .... and need may NOT be selling, but that'd be
forbidden anyway then ;)

BR


- -- 
Jens Ott
- - Gesch?ftsf?hrer -

Opteamax GmbH

Simrockstr. 4b
53619 Rheinbreitbach

Tel.:  +49 2224 969500
Fax:   +49 2224 97691059
Email: jo at opteamax.de

HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Jens Ott
Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVOPfFAAoJECrmRJLVnvx6y/YH/0kKU6Utix3nbuwi3rs8TwMn
LvrVbuzRosgU78LlNc+0rfY/BFCKPLQF0WFm5bCHn5ZkRH21jr8ETkSGWgnGCge2
LuboUF5E9cPpcahMJw4ZP6WNyfZkNQzzXckaALqmN8j2snIfmfutvoiZY6zkjW+7
cLu0ePgnsN4ZeopMSDsRubY65oChrhmKfA5dTvB6sQdEsjmj7jL1dAGVx5A74NTH
2Z4a52c/VGccs+/wPDyaqLc9RL5if3gqg6Om0IB7bJglmcKaVoxESyDmb3heFXNP
0YT3Psl/ySTGPlspUztuMyefektjedB4ndmoId5n5Zjxd/bI3XKmeBAPyKTdxTE=
=MjkK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----