<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><html><head><meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"></head><body ><div style='font-size:10pt;font-family:Trebuchet ms,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;'>Hi Tore,<div><br></div><div>That is like running away from responsibility of policing usage based on need and promoting illicit IP trading. If need is justified there has to be a process to allocate additional IP resources.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Walter<br><br><div class="zmail_extra"><div id="1"><br>---- On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:55:07 +0200 <b>Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no></b> wrote ---- <br></div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #0000FF;padding-left: 6px; margin: 0 0 0 5px">* SBS - Support <<a href="mailto:support@sonabusiness.nl" target="_blank">support@sonabusiness.nl</a>> <br> <br>> The RIPE policy of allocating only a PA /22 to new LIR's and not <br>> allocating any further IPv4 resources is highly detrimental to the <br>> growth of new upcoming organisations and protects legacy Telco <br>> operators, what are your thoughts on reviewing this and coming up <br>> with a process to allocate further resources to new LIR's if the need <br>> can be justified. <br> <br>If we hadn't done it that way, we would today not have had IPv4 <br>addresses at all to allocate to new upcoming organisations. <br> <br>None. <br> <br>Zip, zilch, zero. <br> <br>How would that have been any less detrimental? <br> <br>Tore <br></blockquote><br></div><br></div></div></body></html><br>This electronic message contains information from Sona Business Services (SBS) which may be privileged and confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete this message immediately.