[address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

>>If you wish to fight these companies, make it hard for everyone. E.g.
delay every single transfer, of any prefix. Or prevent every single
transfer, no matter when the prefix was first allocated. Fair it wouldn’t
be, but with an elite thinking they know best, will it ever be?

I think as long as it is for every single transfer and applied to all
members, it is fair.

Regards,

Arash



On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 7:17 PM Rick Bakker <rick at bakker-it.eu> wrote:

> +1
>
> Let’s try and stop the elite formed by said old members…
>
> Also: how objective can it be said this working group is, when a prominent
> member himself, is part of companies that do exactly what is said to try
> and prevent here? Cough cough cough…
>
> Looking back at 2019, forming shell companies to obtain /22s, to merge the
> companies and the LIRs, only to “broker” (hint) this exact space… This
> smells like actively trying to put competition into disadvantage.
>
> If you wish to fight these companies, make it hard for everyone. E.g.
> delay every single transfer, of any prefix. Or prevent every single
> transfer, no matter when the prefix was first allocated. Fair it wouldn’t
> be, but with an elite thinking they know best, will it ever be?
>
> Op wo 8 dec. 2021 om 08:03 schreef Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc at parsun.com>
>
>> >My suggestion would be along the lines what was proposed on the APWG
>> >meeting already - earmark these /24s as non-transferrable, ever.
>>
>> I don't think it is a good idea to split the IPv4 addresses into
>> different types, transferable and non-transferrable. it puts those
>> newcomers in a disadvantageous position compared to the older members, it
>> is not fair and doesn't fix anything in long term.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Arash
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 1:56 AM Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 02:29:15PM +0000, Erik Bais wrote:
>>> > As WG chairs we would like to see the position of the WG on the topic
>>> and what could be seen as a possible solution.
>>>
>>> As a member of the WG, I do share the sentiment that the intent of the
>>> "IPv4 runout" policies have been "ensure that late comers to the game
>>> can have a bit of IPv4 space, to number their IPv6 translators", and
>>> not "grab some space for free, and sell it for more money elsewhere".
>>>
>>> I do not think this can be fixed on the AGM level ("one legal entity
>>> can only have one LIR account") - we've been there, in the rush to /22s,
>>> and all it does it "make people hide behind shell companies", so in
>>> the end, the address space goes out anyway, but registry quality suffers.
>>>
>>> Trying to make the NCC require even more paperwork isn't going to stop
>>> those that want to game the system, but will impact everyone else by
>>> making the NCC more annoying to deal with.
>>>
>>>
>>> My suggestion would be along the lines what was proposed on the APWG
>>> meeting already - earmark these /24s as non-transferrable, ever.
>>>
>>>
>>> Consequences:
>>>
>>>  - there is no more financial incentive to "get one cheap, sell it
>>> expensive"
>>>
>>>  - if you need space to run your business, this is exactly what it is
>>>    there for - you can still sell your business (with the /24), you
>>>    just need to keep the LIR account.  But that's as with other
>>>    business assets.
>>>
>>>  - if you want to merge multiple LIR accounts, all having their own
>>>    /24 - then you need to keep around these accounts, or return some
>>>    of the /24s.
>>>     - corrolary: if you use these /24s to number your IPv6 translators,
>>>       then renumbering this translator into "your other /24" is actually
>>>       not very hard.
>>>     - corrolary2: If you use the /24s to directly number your customers,
>>>       you missed the boat already (wearing my RIPE unicorn t-shirt
>>> today).
>>>
>>> Gert Doering
>>>         -- NetMaster
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>>>
>>> SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael
>>> Emmer
>>> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>       Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
>>> D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
>>> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>>> --
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or
>>> change your subscription options, please visit:
>>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>>>
>> --
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change
>> your subscription options, please visit:
>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>>
> --
> Kind Regards,
> Rick Bakker
> Director
>
> Bakker IT
> Dutch Chamber of Commerce number: 71593721
> VAT registration ID: NL002414398B43
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20211208/348d3a22/attachment.html>