On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:21:12PM +0100, Martin Millnert wrote:Well, if a business wants to hang on to their addresses (for two or more years), then that is a 'legitimate' use of the /22 :)
This proposal serves the purpose of shutting off access to 'cheap' IPv4
for new businesses, definitely forcing them to turn to the IPv4
resellers who in turn can protect their prices.
I can't actually see that. The proposal doesn't move the
goalposts for a new LIR at all, assuming that a new business
would want to hang on to their ipv4 space for at least two years.
It doesn't even prevent them from creating >1 LIR if they need
more than 1024 addresses - as long as each "LIR" hangs on to
theirs for 2 years. The only difficulty is in creating multiple
LIRS and then immediately merging them (and that issue has been
raised)
rgds,(*) I would argue that the assignment or sub-allocation of the address space to an other company is a legitimate usage of the allocation.
Sascha Luck
Elvis Daniel VeleaChief Executive Officer Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net |
|
Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: |
|
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited. |