July 2015 - address-policy-wg

Opposing policy 2015-01
by Arash Naderpour 01 Jul '15

01 Jul '15

Hi, I oppose policy 2015-01 because it can affect LIRs which are not new but they recently have received their /22 from last /8. (For example an LIR which is registered in 2010 and just received its /22) the LIR is not established to just receive the /22 but it has to wait for 2 years to be able to transfer it and I don't see any reason for this limitation. As a side effect it makes it harder for IP distribution which is the main goal of RIPE. Regards, Arash Naderpour

6 6

We need IPv4 transfers
by Shahin Gharghi 01 Jul '15

01 Jul '15

Hi > You are just adding noise to the list. The messages show you are making noise. If you have any idea we can hear that. And I think you'd better play fair. You are using your power as a chair to get this proposal accepted. I asked a question and if you have an answer for that, tell me. People will be able to transfer their /22 after accepting this proposal. So this proposal won't help at all. What's your answer as a person who supports this proposal and of course as the chair? -- Shahin Gharghi

2 1

We need IPv4 transfers
by Shahin Gharghi 01 Jul '15

01 Jul '15

Dear Gert This question is for you and all of the members too. There is nothing private. -- Shahin Gharghi

2 1

We need IPv4 transfers
by Shahin Gharghi 01 Jul '15

01 Jul '15

Dear Garry So after accepting this policy people can transfer IP's without any additional cost like before. It means although you know this policy won't work you are supporting it? Why??! -- Shahin Gharghi

2 1

Opposing policy 2015-01
by Shahin Gharghi 01 Jul '15

01 Jul '15

Hi I agree with Arash and also people can transfer their IP's after two years. So the proposal doesn't help again. -- Shahin Gharghi

3 2

We need IPv4 transfers
by Shahin Gharghi 01 Jul '15

01 Jul '15

Hi Although this is the last call, and I have been criticizing the usefulness of this proposal in protecting the remained IPv4, I am not still logically replied. Those questions were: 1- How can we prevent transfers by accepting this proposal? We can always transfer by taking ownership of the sellers company. So this proposal would not be beneficial at all. 2- According to the 1st question, and knowing that , there are some dealers who get IP's from RIPE NCC and sell them to customers, Why wouldn’t RIPE NCC sell the IP's directly to them? (By allowing those companies to register new LIR and get new /22). 3- Obviously the internet is increasing and companies need more IP's, and there are some other IP's available in RIPE NCC, Why shouldn't we use them? The people won't think about IPv6 seriously unless they see there is no other IPv4. 4- If people are unable to transfer IP's. They will lend them. (The proposal won't help again) I would be glad to add my arguments to Sander's conclusion. -- Shahin Gharghi

2 1