[address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs

I agree with Yuri and want to warn you next. 

Why do we discuss about profit? We can also say that ISPs or Hosting Providers get IPs, then start their servers, networks and make profit. It's too bad. Let's close this hole.

This proposal won't solve IPv4 exhaustion problem, due to the part of transfers from the last /8 is too small.

11.06.2015, 20:55, "Staff" <office at ip4market.ru>:
> Greetings!
>
> Everybody should remember that market begins when some luck of resources
> take place. Everybody want to force world to move to Ipv6 and forget
> about the problems. But until IPv4 exists and it's possible to use
> it/get it/buy it - and it's easier then to start Ipv6 - people will use
> IPv4.
>
> If we will make harder to get IPv4 - the market will grow. But people
> who discuss here - they don't want this market. So logicaly they need to
> allow people use IPv4 and get them easy, but not harder.
>
> Let's say give new LIR /21 (2048IP). It will be more then enough for
> several years. And I will tell why. Becouse it will drop the market
> price low and stop some speculations. And a lot of people will start
> selling resources that they don't need. And people who need IPs - they
> will be able to get enough from RIPE in standard way. There is no
> secrets here. Everything is clear. If more people work in this clear and
> fair way - the more people will offer own IPs for others.
>
> There will be no luck of IPs. Just more redistribution.
>
> What do community thinks?
>
> Yuri
>
> On 11.06.2015 20:35, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
>>  On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 07:09:24PM +0200, Roger Jrgensen wrote:
>>>  I'm okay with letting RIPE NCC use some judgment. I am unsure if
>>>  they are (RIPE NCC). And sooner or later someone will complain.
>>>  How, and who should deal with that? I think the current complain
>>>  system can handle it with some minor tuning.
>>
>>  Perhaps the system that was in use for >/16 allocation requests
>>  could be used for "questionable"requests. (IPRA -> IPRA managers -> Board)
>>
>>>  way here we go (oh, and I don't think APGW is the right place
>>>  for this discussion).
>>
>>  Perhaps not, but APWG is what we have - and I prefer this to
>>  backroom chats resulting in policy proposals that their
>>  supporters don't even have to make any effort to defend.
>>
>>>  We could turn the table around, show that you got IPv6 deployed
>>>  as a requirement.
>>
>>  hardly possible these days except in limited circumstances. Try
>>  an MPLS design when all you have is ipv6.
>>
>>>  Or we could request that new LIR show that
>>>  they actual are doing business as in showing an approved
>>>  accounting from last year (not sure if I use the right words
>>>  here...), point is that they should show they actual are doing
>>>  business before they can get IPv4.
>>
>>  Not every LIR is a business and not every LIR is a company. It is
>>  still "legal" for individuals to become a LIR and get resources
>>  for private use and long may it be possible.
>>
>>>  This will however actual
>>>  exclude them from interacting with any IPv4 marked for a while,
>>>  but, really, I don't care much about that problem.
>>
>>  Thereby killing whatever startup culture exists in the RIPE
>>  Service Region?
>>  Excellent vindication of my point about some randomers on a
>>  mailing list determining the fate of Internet business on two
>>  continents...
>>
>>>  term problem.... another way around that problem is to buy/lease
>>>  IPv4 until they can get their from RIPE NCC.
>>
>>  Thus giving the exact same people (resource speculators) a
>>  captive market and losing the NCC some potential members in the
>>  process.
>>
>>  rgds,
>>  Sascha Luck

-- 
Kind regards,
Petr Umelov