2. I think that’s a bit extreme, but I get the idea. I would rather see it this way: If a LIR with a /22 merges with another LIR with a /22, it’s not reasonable to ask them to give it back as they are LIRs from similar size (or they can be asked to demonstrate that they need both). If a LIR with a /22 is bought by another LIR with a /19, it’s reasonable to « ask » them to give back the /22 in the next 6-12 months as they probably have the space left to renumber. The rule could be: if the biggest LIR has 4 or 8 times more address space than the smaller LIR, the smallest has to return address space under X months. Exception: if a LIR with several /16s or bigger merges with another similar-sized LIR, the whole thing should be audited in order to see how many address space they can return. David Ponzone Direction Technique email: david.ponzone@ipeva.fr <mailto:david.ponzone@ipeva.fr> tel: 01 74 03 18 97 gsm: 06 66 98 76 34 Service Client IPeva tel: 0811 46 26 26 www.ipeva.fr <blocked::http://www.ipeva.fr/> - www.ipeva-studio.com <blocked::http://www.ipeva-studio.com/> Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et établis à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Tout message électronique est susceptible d'altération. IPeva décline toute responsabilité au titre de ce message s'il a été altéré, déformé ou falsifié. Si vous n'êtes pas destinataire de ce message, merci de le détruire immédiatement et d'avertir l'expéditeur.

Le 17 févr. 2016 à 18:27, Gunnar Guðvarðarson <gunni@wave.is> a écrit :

1. Yes 2. Make it so that any /22 allocated from "the last /8" is non-transferrible if allocated after a specific date, ever.

That way, if a LIR requests a /22 the subnet is bound to that LIR, if the LIR then wants to merge with another company it must return the /22.

That way any abuse becomes a very expensive thing to maintain.

And of course require a working IPv6 allocation before assigning anything from IPv4.

----

Dear colleagues,

The RIPE NCC Executive Board would like to ask the membership to discuss the issue of RIPE NCC members opening additional LIR accounts.

There were comments at the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) in November 2015 that members having the ability to open additional LIR accounts, each of which can request a /22 of IPv4 address space, may run against the spirit of the last /8 policy. In light of this, the Board decided to temporarily suspend the ability of RIPE NCC members to open additional LIR accounts.

The RIPE NCC began to allocate IPv4 address space from the last /8 policy on 14 September 2012. Since that time the RIPE NCC has allocated more than 8,600 /22s, yet there remains 0.94 of a /8 still in the pool.

ACTION REQUIRED: The Board asks the membership to provide their opinion on and discuss the following points:

1. Is the activity of members opening additional LIR accounts a problem that must be prevented?

2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention?

Statistics pertinent to this discussion are available in this article on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/laura_cobley/ripe-ncc-members-and-multiple-lir-accounts?pk_campaign=members&pk_kwd=list-ncc

The Board asks that members discuss this issue on the Members Discuss mailing list .

The Board will monitor the discussion and will review it at the next Executive Board Meeting on 31 March 2016. Depending on the outcome of that meeting, the Board may propose a resolution for members to vote on at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2016.

Best regards,

Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board

~ Gunnar

---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/

Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

On 17 Feb 2016, at 17:27, Gunnar Guðvarðarson wrote:

2. Make it so that any /22 allocated from "the last /8" is non-transferrible if allocated after a specific date, ever.

That way, if a LIR requests a /22 the subnet is bound to that LIR, if the LIR then wants to merge with another company it must return the /22.

Transfer / Acquisition are not the only way to use some other network IP space. I said it in a previous mail but it seems my line of thought was not understood so I will explain it below. This is not meant to generate a discussion just show how complex things could become (for the NCC) with the wrong rules in place. Thomas — Recreative writing: Create a new business and LIR then find a network wanting the space and LEASE them the space. Give them a lovely contract with non-disclosure to protect both parties. Then the buyer becomes upstream and route the IP address. The seller will very willingly shout to whoever want to believe it that he is a customer/reseller of his and use his infrastructure to deliver services. They will forever stay two legal entities (negligible cost). I will be therefore be impossible to prove ‘beyond doubt’ to stop this behaviour. In this scenario the person ‘leasing’ the IP space is at risk but may have no other choice. And clearly as this will be against the rule, the person ‘owning the IP’ can have a suddain realisation that he is doing something wrong and then reclaim what he leased. If you think it is ugly. think about how you want to handle this issue. I can think uglier :-)