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

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Opteamax GmbH wrote:

> 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 ;)

Announcing globally was never a requirement to receive IP addresses from
RIPE, and changing policy retroactively is not a nice thing to do. And you
wouldn't deter this kind of 'abuse' at all, if you're in the internet
business I'm sure you know how easy it is to set up an announcement for a
prefix.


Matyas