[address-policy-wg] 2015-05

>
> I think the answer expected was to clarify (for whomever is interested) why
> Iran companies can't announce IPv6.
>
> ​You can check that in RIP NCC's statistics. Whole Iran LIRs have one
upstream provider (AS12880 AS48159) and it doesn't support IPv6. Also
making tunnel to some brokers is illegal and blocked and if it was open,
brokers don't work with Iran because of sanctions.​


Again, what are you talking about sanctions ? As I mentioned Iran is the
> largest importer of IPv4 space and it comes from all over the region.
>

​People should transfer money illegally to outside of Iran because we can't
use SWIFT as you know. So if we transfer money and they won't transfer the
IP's, there is no where to complain. (at least RIPE NCC can help in this
case to ease transfers)
So if we could transfer easily the number of transfers would be much more.​


> I'm not sure it can. It would be up to the RIPE community to reach
> consensus on a policy proposal which somehow eases Iran's sanctions
> problems. I doubt a policy could have that effect. If you have some ideas
> about how this could be done, please share them or submit a policy proposal
> which does that.
>
>
​I'll do my best to submit a proposal.
​


> Of course Iran is part of the community. However when RIPE develops
> address policies here, we are supposed to consider the interests of the
> community as a whole and do the best (or least worst) for everyone. Current
> policy allows Iranian LIRs to get the same sized IPv4 allocations as
> everyone else. IMO they're no better off or worse off than any other LIRs
> in the RIPE service region who need to get v4 space from the NCC.
>
> ​I don't say Iranian LIRs should receive bigger parts,​

​I mean even this /22's can help them.

I apologize if some of my notes are not related to this WG.
​
-- 
Shahin Gharghi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151021/7ed24cbf/attachment.html>