[address-policy-wg] 2015-05

The way you said it was like you were referring to anyone that bought
IPs from the market.

What you are proposing is impossible to implement and still won't save
this policy. It's difficult to find a "better fairness" today and I
don't see a way this policy would help anyone except a few small...ish
providers.


On 10/21/2015 2:33 PM, Tom Smyth wrote:
> My point was that if people have used mechanisims such as new lir +transfer
> /merge then they would not qualify for an additional alocation ... which in
> my opinion is fair enough...and would still conserve ip address space for
> new lirs in future ...
> Do you  love it now ;) ?
> On 21 Oct 2015 12:28, "Ciprian Nica" <office at ip-broker.uk> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 10/21/2015 2:20 PM, Tom Smyth wrote:
>>> Perhaps people would support the Proposal, if the there was a stricter
>>> condition on the transfers, ie
>>>
>>> that the Lir has not had any transfered IPs added to its registry,  (in
>>> addtition to the rule that the Lir has not transferred IPs out of its
>>> registry)
>>
>> So if some LIR needed IPs desperately enough to pay money for them, they
>> don't deserve to receive a free allocation from RIPE.
>>
>> <s>Yes, that would make everyone love this policy.</s>
>>
>> Ciprian
>>
>>
>>
>