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

* Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) <d.baeza at tvt-datos.es> [2015-04-23 17:21]:
> >... and the community is free to declare that "Make another LIR and move
> >resources to old LIR (right away)" is considered abuse of the last /8
> >policy, and dis-incentivize it...
> 
> Sure we are. But I always have seen a problem with this kind of
> proposals and the community.
> The problem is that lot of members of the community are IP
> Trader/Broker/Sellers so, a policy such this one are VERY GOOD for
> them while is VERY BAD for the new lirs that only hold a /22.
> The community should be objetive, and Im pretty sure it isnt.

I don't think that "a lot" of the community are IP traders (and by
that I mean companies that make profit by buying/selling IPv4). They
are one part of the community.

> Why Elvis, a well know IP Broker from V4Escrow, proposed this
> instead of "Unused space should be returned to RIPE"???

Because he was the one who actually submitted the proposal. More
people agreed that this proposal would be useful (me among them).

> Did the community think about if all the offers in the Listing
> Service are reclaimed from RIPE, the IPv4 Exhaustion "dissapear"?

No, the IPv4 exhaustion will not "disappear". :) Please stop spreading
such an urban myth. You can be proven wrong by simple mathematics.

> Why nobody in the community proposed it?

Because it is nonsense.


Regards

Sebastian

-- 
GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE.
            -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 616 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150423/c856083c/attachment.sig>