This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Staff
office at ip4market.ru
Thu Jun 11 12:42:08 CEST 2015
Good day everyone! We don't see it's a good idea to somehow limit transfers. So we don't see this proposal will help, it will not "close the loophole". RIPE should help and assist to make transfers more easy. So people can easily redistribute IPs that they don't really need. Number of transfers of 185.x networks is not large. And while this ability exists many companies can start own business with IPv4 space normally. Again, this one proposal will not help and it will make boomerang effect. Olga, Hostmaster On 11.06.2015 12:36, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > Hi! > > One interesting things. > > The following text is taken from here https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01: > > "The goal of this policy change is to close the loophole which allows companies to setup LIRs and immediately transfer the /22(s) received from the RIPE NCC, thus making a financial profit by using the existing IPv4 marketplace." > > As mentioned many times during debates AP WG has no relations to financial questions. > > In such case WHY does current policy appeal to finances? > > P.S. I know that all said here and now have no impact since Review is ended. > > 11.06.2015, 12:18, "Martin Millnert" <millnert at gmail.com>: >> On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 16:31 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: >>> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net> wrote: >>> >>> > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer >>> > Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. >>> >>> Strongest possible support; if anything, this does not go far enough. >> Also support current proposal. >> >>> I will readily admit that I can not come up with a text which prevents >>> abuse _and_ allows for valid operational needs, though. >> Indeed. Mergers & acquisitions are real-world business events that APWG >> cannot affect. I see a big nut to crack on how to address abuse via >> "illegitimate" M&A, including figuring out what is and what is not >> "illegitimate" and "abuse". >> >> As always, I believe address pricing will be most straight-forward way >> to manage this for remaining RIPE region v4 pools. >> >> /M > > -- > With best regards, Vladimir Andreev > General director, QuickSoft LLC > Tel: +7 903 1750503 >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]