[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Hi,

I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of view
regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my understanding
that this policy will not make a real difference from the RIPE NCC's point
of view, and that if the rate of requesting new /22s remains the same, the
pool of available Ipv4 resources will last more than 5 years from now -
which from my point of view is a long time.

Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs because
it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered.
Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros setup
fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the
current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in.

Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should be
enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. Otherwise,
from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the game"
and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok.

Thank you,
Matei Storch
[F]: General Manager
[M]: +40728.555.004
[E]: matei at profisol.ro
[C]: Profisol Telecom


-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On
Behalf Of Garry Glendown
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 13:04
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis
Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Guten Tag,
> I opposite this proposal.
>
> It only will increase the price of the block, RIPE won't be get 
> payment from this scheme and will increase the price of membership
I don't see why this proposal causes a price increase for legitimate LIRs
that plan on operating instead of just existing for the cause of receiving a
/22 then transfer to another LIR ...

Personally, I believe the proposal (or a later extension of the policy)
should also limit the intake of /22 from the last /8 on the receiving end -
while I do understand that for any late entry into the Internet market the
limitation of getting around with just one /22 is causing a certain degree
of hardship, it's still something that should not be relieved just by
throwing money at it, while new companies with even later entry into the
market end up without any v4 addresses at all due to hoarders ... so
limiting transfer-in to something like 3x /22 over the period of 5 years
(for example) could make it even more expensive (albeit, again, would not
completely rule out hoarding)

Anyway, as a first step, I support 2015-01 ...

Regards, Garry

--

Garry Glendown * Professional Services & Solutions

NETHINKS GmbH | Bahnhofstraße 16 | 36037 Fulda T +49 661 25 000 0 | F +49
661 25 000 49 | garry.glendown at nethinks.com
Geschäftsführer: Uwe Bergmann
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Garry Glendown | AG Fulda HRB 2546 PGP
Fingerprint: B1CF 4952 F6EB E060 8A10 B957 700E F97F B412 DD32

 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 4006 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150609/22c33801/attachment.bin>