[members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security

On 05/16/2018 10:31 PM, William wrote:
> >So on any price increase that you know a loophole for to avoid.
>
> Well, obviously he/others/i do? I do not see this as any problem, it 
> is nothing forbidden or 'wrong'.
>
> Hell, if RIPE charges me per size for legacy i can pay it as PI, if 
> they do it for PI or increase PI fees insanely... it's still mine, it 
> might end up with APNIC or "DB fixed" unchangeable but free/lower cost 
> (and everyone else that has no choice to move will be punished).

Interesting enough other RIRs believe this is wrong enough, that they do 
not allow it.

If you have both non-legacy resources at APNIC and want to manage legacy 
through them, they bill you for both.
And putting it in a separate non-member account is not going to help 
against that.

https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/non-member-fees/#IPv4

==
If a Non-Member holds IPv4 addresses that have been allocated by APNIC, 
then the Non-Member’s total IPv4 address holdings, including all 
Historical and APNIC-allocated address space, will be used to assess the 
IPv4 component of the annual address fee as follows:

Feev4 = 1,200 x 1.308(log2(Addresses)-8)
==

> You seem to understand how the process works within RIPE, but this 
> will ultimately just end as above, our loophole is not really fixable 
> (i think we now all know "taking legacy IPs away" is theft de-jure, 
> right?).

I am not talking about taking away, I am talking about not providing any 
services to it.

Is it theft if a city refused to collect the trash from someone that 
claims his own republic and refuses to pay the council tax that 
facilitates that? :-)



Yours sincerely,

Floris Bos

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20180517/575b8b86/attachment.html>