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

Hi all, Ni Nigel,

Sorry for the late reply I tried to post my opinion days ago but there 
was an issue with subcription on the list.
I think 2015-01 did the most. I would tune that with audit and I would 
forbit transfert of never annouced address space.
Short answer for busy or lazy readers ;-)

Here you are my opinion:

1. Is the activity of members opening additional LIR accounts a problem
that must be prevented?

Yes. It has been abused in a speculative way. During late 2014 and all 
2015 some legal entities used it to obtain address space from /8 and 
immediately sell it to market.
There was a loophole in the policy. This is not more possible thanks to 
2015-01 discussed and approved on address-policy-wg.
There was a plenty of abusing even before september 2012. Wall of shame 
is there. No one is shamed though.
I want you to notice that if you analyze the ripe allocation list you 
can find similar behavior happened even before when policies were 
completely different
Single legal entinty with multiple LIR account requested and obtained 
allocation greater as /18 or /16 for each LIR account they owned.
Some of the allocation are still there and it's easy to check with date 
allocation, some maybe were transferred and are not easy to track.

2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action
should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention?

We should attempt prevention but it's not easy. But we can consider some 
options:

- Stop allowing opening multiple LIR account for one legal entity. Easy 
but irrelevant, will reach but it's easy to cheat already said from many 
of us.
- Add more disincentive with a 5 years holing time before for all 
transfer. Very difficul  to reach rough consensus many LIR are holding a 
lot of unused address space. They will expose their castle to Ipv6 
adoption rate...
- Returing allocated and unused: Mostly impossible. Anyway I would like 
to see what would happen to stockpiled IPs if memership fee were 
IP/monthly based. May result in cheaper transferts, cheaper leases, more 
LIRs doing their work, more internet. Very interesting.

- Audit
We had a large surplus in 2015 instead of redestributing it (this made 
even higher the surplus of speculators) we can consider to use it for audit.
In this case we can allow multiple LIR per legal entity beacause it 
would been ever easier to indentify when the behavior becomes strange.
If they have customers they will have assignements, IPs will be in use, 
IPs will be announced, database is consistent I don't see any abuse here.
It something is wrong RIPE will terminate the LIR for violations or 
other reason as in SSA and resources will be back to the available pool.

- Forbit transfert of "never annouced" address space. Maybe difficult to 
reach consensum but I don't like to see in IPv4 Transfer Listin Service 
best offers for "never annouced address space". This is sure comes from 
stockpiling or quick buck speculators.

I think 2015-01 did the most. I would tune that with audit and I would 
forbit transfert of never annouced address space.

kind regards
Riccardo


-- 

Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail:rgori at wirem.net    


WIREM Fiber Revolution
Net-IT s.r.l.
Via Cesare Montanari, 2
47521 Cesena (FC)
Tel +39 0547 1955485
Fax +39 0547 1950285

--------------------------------------------------------------------
	CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re-
plying toinfo at wirem.net
         Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------