Vladimir, +1
I am just speaking about how easy requirement about making assignments can be passed.
23.04.2015, 17:19, "Matyas Koszik" <koszik@atw.hu>:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Opteamax GmbH wrote:
>> On 23.04.2015 15:39, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
>>> If we suppose having multiple /22 per LIR is abusing then main
>>> "abuser" is RIPE NCC since RIPE NCC makes transfers and LIR merging
>>> allowing to receive second /22 etc.
>> So you agree my initial reply that actually the change does not go far
>> enough, it'd be better to completely prohibited selling IP (v4) and
>> instead enforce withdrawing of not announced IP-Space aand returning
>> it into the pool?
>>
>> That way I am pretty sure we could quickly loosen the current /8
>> policy and return to a policy allowing requests of more then one /22
>> if need is shown .... and need may NOT be selling, but that'd be
>> forbidden anyway then ;)
>
> Announcing globally was never a requirement to receive IP addresses from
> RIPE, and changing policy retroactively is not a nice thing to do. And you
> wouldn't deter this kind of 'abuse' at all, if you're in the internet
> business I'm sure you know how easy it is to set up an announcement for a
> prefix.
>
> Matyas
--
With best regards, Vladimir Andreev
General director, QuickSoft LLC
Tel: +7 903 1750503