This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[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
Sat Apr 25 15:22:15 CEST 2015
I think you mix "preventing making profit" and "assure available IPv4 space to new entrants". As I calculated (and presented my results some days ago) reselling has low impact on IPv4 exhaustion. So the only reason (as I see it) is just to prevent earning money. Therefore I have reasonable question: why do some members worry about someone's profit? And PLEASE don't tell me about "abusing". As somebody said earlier in current discussion there are big IP-blocks allocated before Sep. 2012 without real need. Just because "we used all previously allocated space". Holders of such blocks are much strong "abusers". 25.04.2015, 15:42, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike at swm.pp.se>: > On Sat, 25 Apr 2015, Infinity Telecom SRL wrote: >> How its possible to ask RIPE NCC in 2010-2011 to give you bunch of /15 >> /16 /17 and to day.. your company not need it any more.. > Some people have started putting their customer base behind NAT44(4) to > shift IPv4 address usage from a customer base that will not complain too > loudly to end up behind NAT44(4), to a customer base where NAT44(4) would > cause a lot of problem. > > So this "need" is always relative. I don't know if you're trying to claim > that the providers didn't need these addresses? > > After the investment in NAT44 has been taken (which might have involved > hundreds of thousands or millions of EUR), some might discover that they > actually can do without some IPv4 addresses they needed before, and thus > they might put it on the market because it makes business sense. This > doesn't mean they didn't need it, and these addresses can always be proven > to be needed, it's just that if the market price for IPv4 addresses is > high enough, then it makes sense to sell. > > It's like my old chairs I have in the corner, that I use occasionally. If > I get enough money for them, I might sell them. Does this mean I do not > need them? Well, I can prove to you that I do use them (thus I have some > kind of need for them), but I can find alternatives if I get enough money. > This is a grey area, not black and white. >> Very hard to understand this.. >> >> Right now i should find a why to help new LIRs or old LIRs, but truly >> companies not ghosts that want to make profit ! > That's what the current policy proposal change is all about, to make sure > that the business case for "start LIR, get /22, transfer /22, shut down > LIR" isn't too much better than the market price for IPv4 addresses. > Exactly to stop people absuing the system for profit. > > Yes, it's profit even if you keep it for yourself and don't sell it, > because you've now lowered your cost, acquiring a resource at a lower > price than you would have if you followed the intent of the policy. > > You seem to mix up intent of policy, and what the policy actually says. > The intent has always been to assure available IPv4 space to new entrants > to the market, so they can get started. So if you did the "start LIR, get > /22, transfer /22, shut down LIR" then you might not have violated the > policy, but you were not following the intent of why the policy is the way > it is. So that's why the policy is now proposed to be changed, so that it > more closely follows the intent behind it. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se -- 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 ]