[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: <https://lists.ripe.net/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 ]