[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 ]
Arash Naderpour
arash_mpc at parsun.com
Wed Dec 8 08:03:53 CET 2021
>My suggestion would be along the lines what was proposed on the APWG >meeting already - earmark these /24s as non-transferrable, ever. I don't think it is a good idea to split the IPv4 addresses into different types, transferable and non-transferrable. it puts those newcomers in a disadvantageous position compared to the older members, it is not fair and doesn't fix anything in long term. Regards, Arash On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 1:56 AM Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 02:29:15PM +0000, Erik Bais wrote: > > As WG chairs we would like to see the position of the WG on the topic > and what could be seen as a possible solution. > > As a member of the WG, I do share the sentiment that the intent of the > "IPv4 runout" policies have been "ensure that late comers to the game > can have a bit of IPv4 space, to number their IPv6 translators", and > not "grab some space for free, and sell it for more money elsewhere". > > I do not think this can be fixed on the AGM level ("one legal entity > can only have one LIR account") - we've been there, in the rush to /22s, > and all it does it "make people hide behind shell companies", so in > the end, the address space goes out anyway, but registry quality suffers. > > Trying to make the NCC require even more paperwork isn't going to stop > those that want to game the system, but will impact everyone else by > making the NCC more annoying to deal with. > > > My suggestion would be along the lines what was proposed on the APWG > meeting already - earmark these /24s as non-transferrable, ever. > > > Consequences: > > - there is no more financial incentive to "get one cheap, sell it > expensive" > > - if you need space to run your business, this is exactly what it is > there for - you can still sell your business (with the /24), you > just need to keep the LIR account. But that's as with other > business assets. > > - if you want to merge multiple LIR accounts, all having their own > /24 - then you need to keep around these accounts, or return some > of the /24s. > - corrolary: if you use these /24s to number your IPv6 translators, > then renumbering this translator into "your other /24" is actually > not very hard. > - corrolary2: If you use the /24s to directly number your customers, > you missed the boat already (wearing my RIPE unicorn t-shirt today). > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael > Emmer > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20211208/d7311423/attachment.html>
- 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 ]