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

This thread is just... wow...

Maybe we should review what the Last /8 Policy is all about...

> On Apr 23, 2015, at 15:39 , Vladimir Andreev <vladimir at quick-soft.net> wrote:
> 
>> Because the policy says "one /22 per LIR".
> 
> Policy sets this rule only for /22's received from RIPE NCC.
> 
> Indeed, RIPE NCC will not allocate you several /22. I have tested it :)
> 
> The only way is to receive allocations from other LIR (own or belonging to other companies). An such order doesn't abuse any policies.
> 
> 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.

Actually, this very much is abuse.

The Last /8 Policy is intended to provide for two things:

1. A single small block of IPs (/22) for new organisations who join the internet.
2. A single small block of IPs (/22) for existing organisations who didn't plan for the end of IPv4 very well so they could deploy some kind of 6-to-4-whatever in that /22.

Because businesses merge and do take-overs and that kind of thing in the normal course of existing, transfers related to mergers and acquisitions have to be possible.

Anything else than the above is abuse of the Last /8 Policy and no amount of semantic masturbation is going to change that. If a business needs to abuse this policy to survive, it has no right to exist.

And if you really do need more addresses to survive, IPv4 is over guys, deal with it.

As always, time will tell if this proposal will stop this kind of abuse, but it's a step in the right direction.

Alex Le Heux
Rakuten Inc


> 23.04.2015, 16:35, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net>:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 04:22:51PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
>>>  What from this quotation is? Please give me a link.
>>>  And what statement exactly of the current policy is abusing?
>> 
>> Stop turning in circles.  This question has been answered before.
>>>  Also I would like to receive concrete answer to the question:
>>>  Why using multiple /22's for own company is not abusing but selling is abusing?
>> 
>> Because the policy says "one /22 per LIR".
>> 
>> Gert Doering
>>         -- APWG chair
>> --
>> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>> 
>> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
>> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
>> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
>> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
> 
> -- 
> With best regards, Vladimir Andreev
> General director, QuickSoft LLC
> Tel: +7 903 1750503
>