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

Exuse me about two same emails. It was bag in my client

2015-05-11 23:22 GMT+03:00, Sergey Stecenko <stecenkoserj at gmail.com>:
> Hi all!
>
> I don't understand true reasons of this proposal creation.
>
> Let's think together. If it was created to interrupt exhaustion of
> IPv4 blocks, I want retort:
> today, 11.05.2015 have been allocated 6392 IPv4 from last /8
> (last block is 185.99.220.0/22, 256/4=64, 64*99=6336, 6336+224/4=6392)
>
> If we go here
> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/ipv4-transfers/table-of-transfers
> press ctrl+F and input 185. we can see 508 results, but we should
> devide it by 2, due to there are 2 results in one transfer. So there
> are 254 transfers of IPv4 from the last /8. It is 4% from all
> allocated IPv4 /8.
>
> Also you should draw your attention to some LIRs who make more than 10
> transfers every day. Yes, they don't transfer IPs from last /8. But
> did you think how many resources RIPE can fill if it returns unused
> resources? May be we will think globaly but don't about how to close a
> hole doesn't affect IPv4 exhaustion.
>
> So I oppose this proposal.
>
> 2015-05-11 22:44 GMT+03:00, Sascha Luck [ml] <apwg at c4inet.net>:
>> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 09:32:19PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
>>>This is borderline to bad faith.
>>
>> ISTR you not being very happy about being accused on this list,
>> so I would thank you very much, indeed, not to accuse me of
>> acting in bad faith.
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>> Sascha Luck
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -----
> Kind regards,
> Sergey Stecenko
>


-- 
-----
Kind regards,
Sergey Stecenko