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

I fully support this (mail from opteamax gmbh) point of view! and, of
course the policy proposal.
In my opinion it's a bad thing that RIPE did not have strong (backed up
with strong detection of unused pools) policies even from the start.
Thinks are very complicated and i get that, problems can't be foreseen in
future and it's easy to judge now how thins could be made easier/simpler
but it's not late to start somewhere.
Another opinion/impression that i have (and this does not affect only RIPE
region) is that big providers and content providers do not want ipv6 to be
implemented because behind thoese guys are big interests of making profits
over the ipv4 exaution and this happened as you saw in Romania (Jump
Management) too.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Opteamax GmbH <ripe at opteamax.de> 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
>
> --
> Jens Ott
>
> Opteamax GmbH
>
> Simrockstr. 4b
> 53619 Rheinbreitbach
>
> Tel.:  +49 2224 969500
> Fax:   +49 2224 97691059
> Email: jo at opteamax.de
>
> HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur
> Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
>
>


-- 
Catrangiu Marius
Mobil: 0770481857
Mail: catrangiumarius at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150609/24376c21/attachment.html>