Hi, On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:21:21AM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
I oppose policy 2015-01 because it can affect LIRs which are not new but they recently have received their /22 from last /8. (For example an LIR which is registered in 2010 and just received its /22) the LIR is not established to just receive the /22 but it has to wait for 2 years to be able to transfer it and I don't see any reason for this limitation. As a side effect it makes it harder for IP distribution which is the main goal of RIPE.
This is not a new argument. It has been brought up, addressed, and indeed, this is one of the actual *goals* of the policy: stop LIRs from trading away /22s right away. I can see that those LIRs planning to trade off their /22 as soon as possible will not like the policy change, but I think we'll have to live with that (totally unexpected) side effect. (Besides, the main goal of RIPE is not "enable people to sell /22s" but "ensure that the remaining scraps of IPv4 address space are distributed in a way that is as fairly as possible, given the inherent unfairness of a run-out situation") Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279