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

In this analogy RIPE need to handle that. I think not a good think if
old/big telcos/ISP's are holding many ipv4 address, because they can. This
also not helping to incraise IPv6 penetration, especially for end users
(costumer internet connections, etc).

(by the way, also i don't think it is normal, some old
organisation/companys in US holding /8, because back in the '90's when they
received ipv4 exhausing doesnt matter)

*Köszönettel:* Csárdi-Braunstein János
*Email:* info at mikrovps.hu
*Telefon:* +3694200210
[image: facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/Mikrovps> [image: twitter]
<https://twitter.com/MikroVPS> [image: google plus]
<https://plus.google.com/+MikrovpsHu> [image: linkedin]
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/mikrovps>

2016-02-17 19:37 GMT+01:00 Thomas Mangin <thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk>:

> On 17 Feb 2016, at 17:17, MikroVPS wrote:
>
> I think IP addresses as like radio frequencies (spectrum), it's limited.
>> You can't own/hold frequencies without using that, you need to give back to
>> national organisation what manages that, to allocate new companies, and you
>> can't sell that also. Why RIPE/ARIN/etc can't do this with IPv4 addresses?
>> I not really see the difference.
>>
>
> I can understand your line of thought but this analogy does not work.
> Governments can impose laws on their businesses, the RIPE NCC can not.
> Also most frequencies are SOLD at GREAT VALUE to Telcos - funding
> governments - when thanks to the RIPE NCC model, IPs are nearly free.
>
> So unless you are suggesting that IP address management should be governed
> by the ITU - and I for one does not - the RIPE NCC can only bind LIR by
> contractual laws .. and trying to enforce it internationally would sure be
> painful to watch.
>
> Thomas
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160217/6ec4fed6/attachment.html>