> Removing the needs-based requirement would break open the entire IPv4

> market, letting big corporations to buy everything available and then decide

> who they are willing to sell it for the highest price.

 

I think big companies can approve via RIPE any transfers while they have 

thousands work places, servers, and etc. If we discuss sub-allocations - then 

allocated PA block won't changed. And they can't sell too high.

 

> IP addresses will become a tool to obstruct competitors, wipe-out all

> smaller players and locking the market for newcomers. 

 

Newcomers can get 1024 IPv4 as new LIR. I think any restrictions only increase 

prices. All people usually busy (who not busy here?). If someone has IP and can 

very simple give it to someone - then more IPs will be available and prices for 

IP will be lower.

 

I had this situation - in one company told me that they can sub-allocate IP, 

but don't have any time for bureaucracy.

 

> An authority

> validating each request with the current policies could somewhat prevent

> that from happening.

 

Aha.. Just check big blocks (100k IPs and more) which were allocated before 

IPv4 were finished in RIPE. Of course I think all was made as it was written in 

policy. It is just a black hole in policy. 

 

Conclusion: let’s make simple regulation. Less paperwork, more freedom.