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

It's was just a logical chain. Prerequisite is "having multiple /22 in LIR is abusing".

In my opinion members that open multiple LIR's and sell received /22's are not abusers and RIPE NCC is not abuser.

But if anybody says "<name> abuses policies" that man have to declare "RIPE NCC is also abusing policies".

23.04.2015, 16:49, "Opteamax GmbH" <ripe at opteamax.de>:
>  On 23.04.2015 15:39, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
>>   If we suppose having multiple /22 per LIR is abusing then main
>>   "abuser" is RIPE NCC since RIPE NCC makes transfers and LIR merging
>>   allowing to receive second /22 etc.
>  So you agree my initial reply that actually the change does not go far
>  enough, it'd be better to completely prohibited selling IP (v4) and
>  instead enforce withdrawing of not announced IP-Space aand returning
>  it into the pool?
>
>  That way I am pretty sure we could quickly loosen the current /8
>  policy and return to a policy allowing requests of more then one /22
>  if need is shown .... and need may NOT be selling, but that'd be
>  forbidden anyway then ;)
>
>  BR Jens
>
>  --
>  Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team
>  Jens Ott
>
>  Opteamax GmbH
>
>  Simrockstr. 4b
>  53619 Rheinbreitbach
>
>  Tel.:  +49 2224 969500
>  Fax:   +49 2224 97691059
>  Email: jo at opteamax.de
>
>  HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur
>  Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989

-- 
With best regards, Vladimir Andreev
General director, QuickSoft LLC
Tel: +7 903 1750503