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 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 ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Mon Feb 23 11:30:38 CET 2015
Hi, On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 01:43:41PM +0330, Saeed Khademi wrote: > 2- IP allocations are indeed property of IANA. They distributed it through > RIRs & LIRs to end-users, free of charge. And end-users are entitle to use > these allocations, as long as their initial criteria are valid. And if > initial criteria are not valid anymore, RIRs may take back the address space > according to their policies. This is indeed the crucial point here. The RIPE policies do not have provisions for taking back *allocations* if the allocation criteria are no longer valid. So, voluntarily giving them back is always fine, but if a LIR clings to the space (and pays their bills and does not do anything fraudulent), the NCC can not forcibly take back the space. The reasons for this is easy to see - historically, ISPs did not shrink, they just grew, and needed more and more space. Unless they went bankrupt, in which case the space went to whoever bought them, or back to the RIPE NCC. Nowadays, "LIR" is not necessarily "ISP" anymore, and the business has changed as well - like, no longer giving out /24s to customers but single addresses behind CGNs... [..] > Anyway, as Sander explained, for now selling IP addresses is alright > according to existing policy. And there were lots of talks there. > I am not suggesting a new proposal, I just had problem understanding the > concept of selling IPs, so I asked. ( I'm still against selling IPs ) The thing is that we can't really regulate or prevent the "selling" bit as such - not without preventing completely "ok!" business transactions (like, I want to buy another ISP with all their assets, it should be fine to also take over their address space). What we *can* do is to enforce proper *documentation* of transfers, so it is always clear who is the current holder of an address block, who is permitted to announce it into BGP, etc. - and that, I think, is one of the most important roles of a RIR in the post-depletion era. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150223/5cb860d0/attachment.sig>
- 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 ]