[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Fri Feb 20 21:17:59 CET 2015
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 03:32:48PM +0100, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: >I know this policy proposal is not perfect, as the LIR that receives >the /22 can sub-allocate/assign the IP block for two years before >transferring it (*). There is also the loophole where, if their only >intention is to make a profit from (ab)using the policy, they can try >to merge the newly created LIR into an existing one using the M&A >process/procedure. This last point is where I want to receive some >further comments/suggestions before deciding how to move forward. That wouldn't be speculation though, just gaming the policy in order to get more than a /22. A startup company getting bought out within 2 years of receiving an allocation is also not unthinkable and I think provision should be made for that - provision that doesn't mean "return the space", of course... rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]