[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts

Witam,

I agree 100% with this opinion.

It should be prohibited to sell/buy address space between two LIR (not 
/22 also olders assignments).
It should be some solidarity or prices should be regulated by RIPE not 
by market.

Now companies who have lot of IPv4 are against any changes.
New companies have tied hands.
And RIPE is in the middle.

But they all pay the same fee.

Best regards
Dariusz


> On 12/02/2016 09:34, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>> No, seriously: use IPv6.
> Most of my customers have IPv6.
> Sadly, the rest of the do not
>
> On 12/02/2016 11:59, Dominik Nowacki wrote:
>> This, or CG NAT. 1 village / end point / 1-2 IPs and CG NAT for the whole village + /56 IPv6 per household.
> Is really CGNAT the RIPE-NCC solution for ipv4 exhaustion ?
> As a network engineer, and as a customer, CGNAT look like the worst
> solution.
>
>
> To answer the talk from Gert and other, about the holy mission of the
> RIPE, I agree with them, somehow.
> The RIPE is supposed to show justice, right ? Equality ? Good not evil ?
>
> Let's reap all useless IPv4.
> You want to sell IPv4 ? Obviously, you do not need that subnet.
> You do not announce that subnet over the internet ? Reaped.
> You want to transfert that subnet between two obviously not related
> compagny ? Reaped.
>
> As the Protector of the weaks, and to preserve viability of the
> newcommers, the RIPE-NCC *must not* allow people to make business on the
> back of the new.
> IPv4 are a resource of common interest, not a plot of land that can be
> sell to the richer.
>
> Do not you think ?
>