<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/></head><body style="font-family:Geneva,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Dear Tore, > I question the wisdom of abolishing the need-based mechanism for > sub-allocations exclusively, when (to the best of my knowledge) all > other mechanisms to obtain number resources in all other regions are > need-based. Need-based princip make sense only until RIR has IPv4 for allocations. I understand that it was many years and it is as habit. > > Just see how many transfers in other RIRs. This mechanism work not very good > > for now. > How come? > In any case, if the transfer policy is broken somehow, why not fix it? Transfers good for permanent transfer. For temporary transfers better option sub-allocations while if you transfer IPs for some time than you get them back and see that they are in spamhouse and other black lists. In case of sub-allocation IPs in your control and you can regulate it. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. </body></html>