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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elvis Daniel Velea
elvis at v4escrow.net
Fri Feb 20 15:32:48 CET 2015
Hi Sacha, On 20/02/15 12:29, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:21:12PM +0100, Martin Millnert wrote: >> This proposal serves the purpose of shutting off access to 'cheap' IPv4 >> for new businesses, definitely forcing them to turn to the IPv4 >> resellers who in turn can protect their prices. > > I can't actually see that. The proposal doesn't move the > goalposts for a new LIR at all, assuming that a new business > would want to hang on to their ipv4 space for at least two years. > It doesn't even prevent them from creating >1 LIR if they need > more than 1024 addresses - as long as each "LIR" hangs on to > theirs for 2 years. The only difficulty is in creating multiple > LIRS and then immediately merging them (and that issue has been > raised) > Well, if a business wants to hang on to their addresses (for two or more years), then that is a 'legitimate' use of the /22 :) This policy proposal tries to close the loophole where companies only request the /22 in order to transfer it immediately using the transfer policy. I know this policy proposal is not perfect, as the LIR that receives the /22 can sub-allocate/assign the IP block for two years before transferring it (*). There is also the loophole where, if their only intention is to make a profit from (ab)using the policy, they can try to merge the newly created LIR into an existing one using the M&A process/procedure. This last point is where I want to receive some further comments/suggestions before deciding how to move forward. > rgds, > Sascha Luck > (*) I would argue that the assignment or sub-allocation of the address space to an other company is a legitimate usage of the allocation. regards, elvis -- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Executive Officer Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis at v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150220/c7e51570/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo.png Type: image/png Size: 5043 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150220/c7e51570/attachment.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1.png Type: image/png Size: 11971 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150220/c7e51570/attachment-0001.png>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]