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] *FIREWALL-SPAM ALERT* Re: 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Saeed Khademi
saeed at ipm.ir
Sun Feb 22 05:51:58 CET 2015
Hello, Thank you Sander for the info. I looked into it. Indeed it was a long discussion. Only one point: As you can see, at the time of suggestion of that proposal, there were NO opposing arguments ( according to available data at that time. ) Now there are new data, specially some experiments with re-allocation of address spaces through selling/buying them. Is it possible to re-activate, or re-consider previously approved policies? Because of this policy for re-allocating address spaces through selling/buying, now we see a very HOT bazar and many are making money with it, while none of us ( I mean LIRs ) have paid for any particular address spaces to RIPE NCC. This is easily driving people to lie ( make a new LIR, get some IPs, sell it .... and again and again ) Kind Regards, Saeed. -----Original Message----- From: Sander Steffann Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 4:35 PM To: Saeed Khademi Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Working Group Subject: *FIREWALL-SPAM ALERT* Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Hello Saeed, > Now, isn't it possible, that RIPE NCC develops a policy ( maybe there > one ) to take back these advertised address spaces ? > because their initial criteria is not valid any more ? ( obviously those > organization, do not need these address spaces. ) > > I can understand LEASING some IPs for some period of time, but I can't > understand selling them. We (this working group) had that discussion in 2007 when policy proposal 2007-08 was introduced. At the time it was decided that reallocation (transfers) were a better / more viable solution than trying to reclaim unused addresses. Please take a look at the mailing list archives to see how the discussion went. It was a quite long discussion. Proposal 2007-08: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08 Mailing list archive: https://www.ripe.net/search?SearchableText=2007-08&portal_type%3Alist=Message Cheers, Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]