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

Hi Saeed,

> 
> why not go for that stronger policy right now?

Policy definition process is taking a while. From first attention on
this topic (afaik at RIPE 69 in London) until now it took around 8
months, before it is adopted around 12 month. With adopting this one
now, we prevent that all rest of /22s we have, is now being hoarded and
sold by someone, before a stricter policy is defined.

> why not stop transferring all IPV4 addresses at all? closing all of
> these businesses.
> 
> Isn't it true that we are encouraging people toward IPV6? So, isn't it
> true that letting people to transfer their spaces (selling them),
> will provide additional addresses to those who need it and as a result
> it delays IPV6 deployment?

Exactly that's what I think and exactly that's the reason why I am
absolutely with you to stop V4 transfers. There are legal cases (e.g.
the merger of two Hosters (recent example HostEurope and Intergenia in
Germany who actually both serve a couple of thousands of endusers and a
renumbering or removing of their V4 would mean hurting the end-users).
But those rare cases can be reasonably argued and therefore exceptions
can be made. The hurdle for transfering by means of "how to justify need
for transfer" only needs to be high enough, that it is not done "for fun".

BR
Jens

> 
> with kind regards,
> Saeed.
> 
> 

-- 
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