[address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Vladimir Andreev
vladimir at quick-soft.net
Thu Apr 23 16:24:12 CEST 2015
I am just speaking about how easy requirement about making assignments can be passed. 23.04.2015, 17:19, "Matyas Koszik" <koszik at atw.hu>: > On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Opteamax GmbH wrote: >> 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 ;) > > Announcing globally was never a requirement to receive IP addresses from > RIPE, and changing policy retroactively is not a nice thing to do. And you > wouldn't deter this kind of 'abuse' at all, if you're in the internet > business I'm sure you know how easy it is to set up an announcement for a > prefix. > > Matyas -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]