[address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

Hi guys

Many years ago I questioned why we ever invented a market for address
space 'that no one owns' when we had a perfectly good system of
allocating address space based on need and when no longer needed was
returned to the RIR to be re-allocated...for free. I was told 'don't
be silly, people will still sell the address space but not record the
transfers in the RIPE Database'. So the quality of the registry
diminishes. What is going to stop people selling these 'never to be
transferred' allocations and not recording the transfer in the RIPE
Database? I am sure some back door dealings can be arranged to keep
the LIRs active that have the allocations registered and obfuscate the
fee payments to confuse the RIPE NCC. Have companies developed some
sense of morality in recent years?

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 at 16:41, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> >> On 7 Dec 2021, at 14:56, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> My suggestion would be along the lines what was proposed on the APWG
> >> meeting already - earmark these /24s as non-transferrable, ever.
> >
> > +1 WFM
>
> +1 from me as well. This would have very little (if any) impact on the newcomers for whom this policy was created.
>
> Transfers that have already happened should not be affected of course, but we can make a policy that stops new transfers being made in the future. I would prefer to disallow any new transfers, independent of when the assignment was made, to avoid a rush on the NCC for new memberships.
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/