[address-policy-wg] Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Martin Huněk <hunekm at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would also like to add my point of view on proposal 2015-05.

hello and welcome :-)


<snip>
> The proposed policy would probably lower the need for such practice a little
> bit, but still some space for cheating remains. I would like to see minor
> change in policy, such like that LIR could not transfer IPv4 resources from
> pool 185/8 to another LIR (or its sponsored organizations) so that receiving
> LIR (and its sponsored organizations) would held more than /22 in 185/8 pool.
> That way, it would not matter how many LIR you open, when you close LIR you
> would not be able to transfer resources to any of your other LIRs (in RIR
> region), so it would had to be returned to RIPE for new comers.

The idea might sound good, however you are not very close to
regulation of normal business activity. What if some smaller ISP's
find out they want to work together, merge to create a stronger
company and they have one obvious place to cut cost - go from let's
say 3 LIR's to one... but they can't due to RIPE NCC?



-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
rogerj at gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger at jorgensen.no