[address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf
ripe-lists at sebastian-graf.at
Tue Dec 7 18:44:28 CET 2021
Hello! Any good solution should be start taking effect in the future rather than retroactively, it should be fair and transparent,... So I would like to propose two solutions to this dilemma: a) All ipv4 resources received from the the waiting list requests submitted after 2022-01-01 are non-transferable and bound to the LIR that has requested the resource. b) All ipv4 resources received from the the waiting list requests submitted after 2022-01-01 are non-transferable for the next 60 months. Suggestion (b) would bring us more in line with how ARIN handles requests. Whereas #1 would favor small LIR's. Both solutions create almost 0 additional strain on the current processes. kind regards Sebastian Graf This has the advantage of being "fair" On 12/7/21 18:31, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 06:25:21PM +0100, denis walker wrote: >> Many years ago I questioned why we ever invented a market for address >> space 'that no one owns' when we had a perfectly good system of >> allocating address space based on need and when no longer needed was >> returned to the RIR to be re-allocated...for free. I was told 'don't >> be silly, people will still sell the address space but not record the >> transfers in the RIPE Database'. So the quality of the registry >> diminishes. What is going to stop people selling these 'never to be >> transferred' allocations and not recording the transfer in the RIPE >> Database? I am sure some back door dealings can be arranged to keep >> the LIRs active that have the allocations registered and obfuscate the >> fee payments to confuse the RIPE NCC. Have companies developed some >> sense of morality in recent years? > If the LIR fee is still to be paid, this is commercially not very > attractive - and as such, should stop the business model "open a LIR, > get a /24 for <x> EUR, sell it for <5*x>" nicely. > > Note that we always acknowledged the need for a block of addresses > to "change hands", by mergers & acquisition. Having a formal transfer > policy was basically just accepting that people would hide this in > a company sale otherwise. > > My proposal is actually to disallow transfers *including* disallowing > M&A transfers on these. It MUST stay in the LIR it was requested by, > and if the LIR closes, it MUST be returned. > > Buying a "company with the LIR" would still be possible, of course > (and I do not see a way to disallow this, it's like MS trying to > disallow selling used windows licenses), but "... and then transferring, > and closing the LIR" would not. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]