[address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations

Nothing bad in the things when people need IPs and get them.
IPs should cost nothing. It's just numbers. The luck of IPs - it's the 
RIPEs falt I guese.
As far as we see a lot of IPs are not routed and not used. But some 
small companies own a lot of IPs space never realy used.
Another one trick - that FREE IPs number is growing. 
https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph
https://labs.ripe.net/statistics - LIR number grows becouse it's not 
other way to get some IPs.
So the most profit comes to RIPE, but we still have the same LIR fees, 
they are not going down as the number of real companys that use RIPE 
services.

Vadim

On 23.04.2015 14:55, Erik Bais wrote:
> Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
>
> Hi Gabriel,
>
> I agree with you that it might satisfy a specific need for a company 
> at a certain time to open a new LIR..
>
> I’ve seen LIR’s request for a /22 that didn’t even knew they could 
> still get a free /22 from the RIPE NCC.  . . .
>
> The goal of this proposal is to stop the abuse of opening a new LIR, 
> transferring the /22 for profit to another LIR and close the LIR.
>
> As it is against the original intent of the final /8 last /22 
> procedure  (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-643#51 )
>
> And specifically :
>
> Point 3 :  The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the 
> allocation.
>
> The intention of the current policy and why it was made as it was in 
> the past, is to give EVERY LIR 1 additional /22 … and also have enough 
> for new entries in the market ( looking at the new sign-ups of LIR 
> typically in the market, if you look at how that number grew over the 
> last couple years.. ) for at least 5 to 6 years …
>
> Point 3 doesn’t say .. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) 
> from the allocation or transfer parts or the complete allocation for 
> profit to another LIR.
>
> This policy text was never intended to have new LIR’s being setup and 
> closed just to get cheap IP’s … And I’m pretty sure that if that was 
> foreseen at the time, that the respective author would have closed 
> that gap at the time …
>
> As that is in the past … and this is currently being abused .. It is 
> time to fix this and close this gap.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik Bais
>
> *Van:*address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] 
> *Namens *Infinity Telecom SRL
> *Verzonden:* donderdag 23 april 2015 13:41
> *Aan:* Erik Bais; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 
> Allocations
>
> Hello Erik,
>
>
> Why someone will come to me to get new IPs,  when they can open a LIR 
> by them self ? Without extra cost ?
>
> I think everyone that open a LIR right now its because they dont have 
> any chance to BUY from sellers..
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> /--
> Cu stima,
> Gabriel Voitis | Sales Manager
> /voitis at infinitytelecom.ro <mailto:voitis at infinitytelecom.ro>
>
> /INFINITY TELECOM SRL  |  Bd-ul Iuliu Maniu nr 7, Corp A, Scara 2
> Mobil: +40 0725 677 477  |  Tel: +40 021 7808805  |  Fax: +40 021 7808806
> /contact at infinitytelecom.ro <mailto:contact at infinitytelecom.ro>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150423/96c381f0/attachment.html>