[address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

Personally, I would suggest to increase the 2-years-period if the resulting merged LIR contains prefixes from 2 merged LIRs or more
Example:
A (has a /24) and B (has one historical /22 and another /22 from a previous merger) wants to merge: they would need to wait 3 years.
Next time, It would be 4 years, etc…

Also, if several mergers with the same LIR are requested, I honestly don’t recall if this is allowed, but it should not: one merge per LIR per year.

That should block serial-mergers, but not regular small LIRs with a real network activity.

There are probably loop-holes in my idea, or it’s perhaps too complex to implement.

David Ponzone  Direction Technique
email: david.ponzone at ipeva.fr <mailto:david.ponzone at ipeva.fr>
tel:      01 74 03 18 97
gsm:   06 66 98 76 34

Service Client IPeva
tel:      0811 46 26 26
www.ipeva.fr <blocked::http://www.ipeva.fr/>  -   www.ipeva-studio.com <blocked::http://www.ipeva-studio.com/>

Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et établis à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Tout message électronique est susceptible d'altération. IPeva décline toute responsabilité au titre de ce message s'il a été altéré, déformé ou falsifié. Si vous n'êtes pas destinataire de ce message, merci de le détruire immédiatement et d'avertir l'expéditeur.

> Le 8 déc. 2021 à 08:03, Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc at parsun.com> a écrit :
> 
> >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 <mailto: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 <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg>
> -- 
> 
> 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/20211208/12fd0db4/attachment-0001.html>