This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Rick Bakker
rick at bakker-it.eu
Wed Dec 8 15:12:10 CET 2021
> That would only happen if there are zero new entrants, as an LIR with any existing allocation would have a lower priority on the waiting list. Such a policy would not fight the initial point of discussion that there are single entities requesting multiple times, or using individual legal entities. After all, Rick's IP hoarding business A BV and Rick's IP hoarding business B BV are separate legal entities, thus in your proposal being put in front of a single entity that has two requests under the same legal entity. Such policy, I think, would only push for incorporating multiple entities for the sole purpose of pushing ahead in the queue. (e.g. just look at "Network Space Provider <no.> LTD" in the British company register). All are/were held by a single UBO. Perhaps it would make sense to record UBOs (ultimate beneficial owners), and categorize the waiting list based on the amount of IPs a UBO has already received, plus limit the amount of memberships unique UBOs can open (albeit: open, with a restriction of being unable to request scarce resources). This should include pre-2012 allocations, given we're at the last stretch. and it would be weird to hand someone holding a /21 a 'final /24' when others are in a more urgent need of holding any IPs. Of course, any new policy should only be put into effect for newly made allocations, without any retrospective effects. Regards, Rick On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 2:47 PM Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 12:26 PM Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote: > >> > C) IPv4 waiting list priority follows the size of existing allocations >> for >> > the LIR. The lower amount of allocations, starting with zero, the higher >> > the priority. >> >> if the purpose of new allocations is to allow entry, why would an LIR >> with any existing allocation be given more? >> > > That would only happen if there are zero new entrants, as an LIR with any > existing allocation would have a lower priority on the waiting list. > > -- > Jan > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://mailman.ripe.net/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20211208/ee977243/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]