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]/
[members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Thomas Mangin
thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk
Wed Feb 17 14:37:54 CET 2016
Hi, So .. replying to myself :wink: Proposed solution: > You make a new lir to get a /22 ok, then you cannot sell the ip > address > space. > If the lir is for whatever reason closed the ip address space should > be > requested back. > Nobody will create a new lir for a /22 and pay the fees required if > the > address space given it`s tied to that lir, it will just be to > expensive. I would love to live in a world where this solution works. When you forbid a product which has customer (buying IP space, drugs, other) all you are doing is moving the problem to an un-regulated market where the buyer (the innocent network who NEEDS the IP space and is down the wall) is going to be abused (US prohibition / war on drugs). While I morally totally agree with the principle, I can not see how it can be applied in a way which does not create more problems than it fixes. Thomas
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]