[address-policy-wg] Opposing policy 2015-01

Am I wrong, but the /22 for the existing companies is still subject to "need analysis"? Sort to say - if you have enough IPs in your existing netblock you are not eligible to get this add-ons? Then why the LIR should transfer the IPs if in the process of getting them it shows the need? RIPE NCC is for distributing addresses - it's OK - but for USAGE, not for SELLING.

Second consideration is about supposed limitation in distribution of the IP addresses. Am I wrong again, but initially LIR is not the same as ISP? Yes, I agree that often it is the same company, but if an ISP is so badly in need of IPs it can buy SERVICE from a external LIR (the LIR will allow to use a block of its IP addresses). Transfers are not the only way of helping an ISP with addresses.

Regards,
Vladislav Potapov

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Arash Naderpour
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 3:21 AM
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: [address-policy-wg] Opposing policy 2015-01

Hi,

I oppose policy 2015-01 because it can affect LIRs which are not new but they recently have received their /22 from last /8. (For example an LIR which is registered in 2010 and  just received its /22) the LIR is not established to just receive the /22 but it has to wait for 2 years to be able to transfer it and I don't see any reason for this limitation. As a side effect it makes it harder for IP distribution which is the main goal of RIPE.

Regards,

Arash Naderpour