On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, Andre Keller wrote:
But, I'm afraid the market will do these transfers anyway. And if these transfers happen I'd rather have them supervised and tracked by RIPE.
I agree completely. Introducing a policy like this is just hand-waving, it's not enforcable. Also, can we please stop trying to squeeze blood and fairness out of the IPv4 stone? We know it's not fair, but as far as I can tell, nothing has changed the past 3-5 years so let's just leave the policy as-is. I want for RIPE to keep the database correct and to have as little other work and administration as possible with IPv4. The only way to make more IPv4 addresses available on the market to the people who need them is to create a working transfer market with money involved. Yes, this is unfair but so is the fact that I currently live in an apartment that cost 0.3% of current market value to buy in 1961 when it was originally built. Let's make sure we have a liquid IPv4 address market so people who need addresses short term can get them directly from others without creating huge hassles which only means specialists (brokers) can profit from it. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se