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

Hi Petr,

Besides the fact that all discussion and input on the named policy is currently out-side the discusssion phase.. So the input can't be taken into account ... 

Could you provide insight in which universe the RIPE NCC is still allocating /20's ? 

I am aware that the IPRA's are trying to aggregate connected prefixes if possible .. Is that what you are trying to do in getting a /20 ? ... 
Open 4 or more lir's and issue the tickets for the IPv4 /22's at the same time in hope to get them allocated together from the same block ... So you can aggregate them after a transfer or M&A ? 

What you are saying here .... IS the reason why the community is looking at this policy proposal ... If you need more than a /22 the only way is to get this from the market ... 

I wonder why people still think that they can or will get IPv4 from the Ripe NCC ... 

Erik Bais

> Op 25 apr. 2015 om 18:13 heeft Petr Umelov <petr at fast-telecom.net> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Hi everybody.
> 
> Let me tell some words about current proposal.
> 
> Many providers (among them is our company) need to get (e.g.) /20 subnet (not 4 x /22). If we ask the RIPE NCC to allocate 4 x /22, we can get next variants:
> 1. /20
> 2. 2 x /21 from different subnets
> 3. /22, /21, /22
> 
> There is only one chance to get /20 100% - make request for 7 x /22 (if the tickets will be processed together). But in this case we will have unwanted 3 x /22 which we can transfer to other LIRs to minimize our expenses.
> And also we can get different separate 4 x /22 (the worst case) and we have to transfer such blocks and make new request.
> 
> If this proposal will be agreed, many providers (new and old) will have material losses. So I can't support this proposal.
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> Techincal Director FastTelecom
> Petr Umelov
>