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

Hi Jens,

I totally agree with most of what you said. When the "depletion" was
announced I took a look at the global routing table and when I saw that
only 60% of the 4.2 billion IPv4 addresses were announced, I thought
something is wrong.

I really didn't imagine any sane person would pay so much money for IPs
but probably the ones that predicted or helped this happen, were smart
enough to hoard the pre-last /8s.

If it were possible, I think they should be the first source for taking
back IPs and obviously corporations or organisations that sit on /8s
should be somehow persuaded to give them back.

When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to
sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were
rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked
about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in
use and they can't give up on it.

Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking
advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence
and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community,
that would be a real benefit.

UK's DWP sold 131K IPs in one shot. They sit on another 16+ million IPs
and you take your rage on the 2 russians that sold 30K IPs each over the
last year ? Let's stop the ants too, but I would rather start with the
elefants.

Ciprian

On 6/9/2015 10:57 PM, Opteamax GmbH wrote:
> 
> On 09.06.2015 19:54, Ciprian Nica wrote:>
>> Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and
>> I'll fully support it.
> 
> The only proposal which would actually fully stop this is actually
> refusing Prefix-Transfers completely and enforce returning to the RIPE-Pool.
> 
> The only chance for taking-over Resources then should be a real "merge"
> of two LIR including the demand of their individual customers justifying
> why it is important to not being renumbered ... That kind of proposal
> would actually remove a lot of "profit-making" for brokers etc. on one
> hand, but on the other hand it offers the opportunity to the ones really
> needing IPv4-Space to get their need fullfilled by RIPE... at least if
> that kind of proposal would also enforce withdrawing IP-space which is
> not being really used for a while.
> 
> Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not
> publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd
> have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the
> routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public
> IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8
> with less then one /21 announced.... and I do not want to know how many
> of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a
> blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets.
> 
> ... and we discuss about /22 nets being "hoarded"?
> 
> Sorry, could not resist to point on that.
> 
> Still I support the proposal because it reduces the win for abusers and
> raises the risk that the now "hoarded" addresses are less worth when
> they are sellable. Hey, it is on us to make IPv4-Prefixes worthless.
> 
> Best regards
>