[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published

Hi at all,
+1 for Jens
+1 for the proposal 2015-01
Kind regards,
Carsten Brückner
LIR de.government

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Opteamax GmbH
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 06:38
An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published

Hi Borhan,
Hi List,

hanging around on this list and discussing policy issues for quiet a while I am kind of surprised seeing how this discussion is going now... 

Having this big amount of almost identically sounding "-1 I oppose because I don't like" mails without any substance besides "subjective feelings" gives me the impression that the policy definition process is being abused exactly the same way as the /8 policy is being abused: some few are signing into the mailing list with a lot of addresses just to prevent a policy which has the intention to prevent exactly those people's way of abusing the community!

To be honest, this behaviour makes the need for this kind of policy-change only appear more important. 

I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution. That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be transfered at all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that natural person which where discovered to willingly abuse the community will be banned from ripe membership for the rest of their lifes.

The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to set up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world. There is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and aquisition. If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating gateways between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of stronger version they'd already know that this addresses are not transferable. And they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see a reason why not requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The default shall be all resources have to be returned. I am sure thar requiring the need to argue for several months to get resources transfered will make lot's of transfers obsolete, because that way the transfer becomes uninteresting for most cases. Only LIR with real world used and needed resources will take that discussion. And all traders will silently disappear.

So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more restrictive policy"

Sorry for being so pragmatic, but all those -1 mails show me that the community actually want something much more restrictive! 

BR Jens


Am 9. Juni 2015 22:01:29 MESZ, schrieb Borhan Habibi <borhan.h at gmail.com>:
>I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem
>
>-1 to this proposal
>
>

Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team
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