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] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Mon Jun 20 10:00:50 CEST 2016
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 05:02:50PM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote:
>
> Il 18/06/2016 14:49, Gert Doering ha scritto:
> > hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:49:59PM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote:
> >> I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to
> >> already disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012)
> > This proposal actually will only disadvantage "young LIRs" if they want
> > to do stuff with their /22 that is frowned upon by the community - namely,
> > trade, instead of "use for
> This would disvantage every LIR that received or will reiceve an
> ad-normal PA allocation.
You keep repeating this, which does not make it more true.
Please explain how this proposal would affect a LIR that intends to use
the /22 to number its customers (and/or its own infrastructure), and is not
intending to sell off the address space as quickly as possible to make a
quick profit.
> Please leave the idea of ab-normal LIRs.
This is not an "idea" but observed behaviour by a few bad actors.
[..]
> Nobody protects new LIRs speculator stockpile /22 in a zero cost
> company/person without network or assignements and black sell it the
> same day it has been allocated
> with a private contract registered elsewhere from RIPE database.
> This policy is useless. Audit and control is useful, transparency is a
> must we discussed it at last general
This paragraph does not make sense.
Yes, people can get a /22 and "black sell it", even with 2016-01 - but
the risk for the buyer is much higher than getting a "white" /22 on the
address market, because the seller has to keep open the LIR forever in
this case - and if the LIR is ever closed, the /22 has to be returned to
the RIPE NCC. So why should a buyer take this risk?
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160620/173bc605/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]