Hi, On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:47:49PM +0100, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
Given a scenario where LIR A has addresses which they no longer need, and LIR B needs addresses but the RIPE free pool is empty, then the only motivation that I can see for changing the current process is to allow LIR A to sell their addresses in a secret financial transaction.
This seems somewhat distorted to me. Without the policy change, that transaction would need to be done secretly. With the proposed policy change, it can (and should) be done openly, because you *can* do it openly, and document it. I can't see why "with that change, the chance that someone makes money out of it" is higher - it might actually hamper the black market enough that less money flows. (For the records: I work for a LIR that has some unused addresses in its allocations from the RIPE NCC, but I claim that the blocks are fragmented enough that the chance to sell any sort of useful contiguous block is near zero. Big Telcos with large ranges of dynamically assigned blocks have a far easier stance here than small ISPs that would actually need to renumber customers to free a useful block.) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279