[address-policy-wg] LIRs with good / bad behavior

Hello Corin,
In your case i understand but I still don`t understand why force small 
clients to become LIR only for a /22 and in some case they will not use 
entirely, when we can do something  and fast i think to loose or get in 
front of user eyes all bad behavior LIRs and of course all rest of us to 
help clients, and of course help RIPE to get back all that blocks that 
is use now only for sale.

And if you see from a customer perspective you can see cause is too 
expensive sometimes to become LIR for a /22 and use only /23 or even all 
/22.

This is not a good way.


On 11/19/2015 10:35 PM, Corin Langosch wrote:
> Hi Valentin,
>
> if you read the address policy working groups emails/ archives from the past weeks you can see I'm clearly against the
> ipv4 business/ market place too. We are not a LIR to make money of IP space, we do real ISP/ hosting business for
> several years now. We are short of IPV4 as many other LIRs are, especially those who only got a single /22. That's why
> we had to ask some of our customer to become LIRs themselves (just as you were, as it sounds). As they don't need the
> *whole* space immediately themselves, why not help them lease it to those who need it - not for astronomic prices but
> reasonable ones? This way the space is not wasted and no ones ripped off - in contrast to the behaviour of many old LIRs
> with space of /19, /18 up to /8 just laying around for years and just waiting for better prices.
>
> Sorry again and I hope you got the point.
>
> Best,
> Corin
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Netskin GmbH · Trottenstrasse 89 · 8037 Zürich · Switzerland
> http://www.netskin.com · fon +41 (0)32 513 40 24 · fax +41 (0)32 513 28 21
>
> Am 19.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Valentin Panait:
>