<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;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Dear </span>Michiel<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">,</span><br />
<br />
<div>
> Removing the needs-based requirement would break open the entire IPv4</div>
<div>
> market, letting big corporations to buy everything available and then decide</div>
<div>
> who they are willing to sell it for the highest price.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
I think big companies can approve via RIPE any transfers while they have </div>
<div>
thousands work places, servers, and etc. If we discuss sub-allocations - then </div>
<div>
allocated PA block won't changed. And they can't sell too high.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
> IP addresses will become a tool to obstruct competitors, wipe-out all</div>
<div>
> smaller players and locking the market for newcomers. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Newcomers can get 1024 IPv4 as new LIR. I think any restrictions only increase </div>
<div>
prices. All people usually busy (who not busy here?). If someone has IP and can </div>
<div>
very simple give it to someone - then more IPs will be available and prices for </div>
<div>
IP will be lower.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
I had this situation - in one company told me that they can sub-allocate IP, </div>
<div>
but don't have any time for bureaucracy.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
> An authority</div>
<div>
> validating each request with the current policies could somewhat prevent</div>
<div>
> that from happening.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Aha.. Just check big blocks (100k IPs and more) which were allocated before </div>
<div>
IPv4 were finished in RIPE. Of course I think all was made as it was written in </div>
<div>
policy. It is just a black hole in policy. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Conclusion: let’s make simple regulation. Less paperwork, more freedom.</div>
<br />
--<br />
Kind regards,<br />
Alexey Ivanov<br />
LeaderTelecom B.V. Team<br />
</body></html>