<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Hello, we all know why there are a lot of new LIR's. Maybe in favor of both (old with legacy, and new ones) members could agree on this scheme: Old LIR's and/or those with legacy IPv4 blocks paying the same amount of money as new LIR's - the current billing scheme, but if RIPE NCC recover some IPv4 pools or gets recovered from IANA, they can allocate for LIR's that have only /22 new /22, or /23 (depending on resources avail). Using FIFO model, oldest LIR's with only 1 /22 will get second allocation. Rules could be also that for example, you can't get second assignment in first 2 years when you get first one. If LIR's who has only /22 and never used transfer services, i.e. they have only this allocation of IPv4 they are eligible for second /22 or /23, maybe even /24. If LIR who has /22 and bought/transferred IPv4 - are not eligible. The rule is simple: if you can afford transfer (we now that is buying procedure anyway) - you are not allowed for new allocation. It's just draft, but maybe something could be made on this model? Because now a lot of people registering (2nd, 3rd, etc) LIR's for only one goal - after two years to make a transfer to parent LIR. In such a case - if you know, that even maybe you have a chance to get IPv4 allocation after 2 years - it may worth waiting and not spending money, abusing RIPE NCC with paper work on LIR's registration, etc. regards, Simas Mockevicius HOSTLINE, UAB <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016.09.19 18:05, Tom Lehtinen wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:4078b44fa47c62c866dbe240d6ffa08d@tombii.com" type="cite">RIPE NCC is currently the only RIR that is not charging differentiated fees depending on LIR size. We all know that IPv4 addresses are shared resources and that we are running out of available resources. Best regards, Tom </blockquote> </body> </html>