Moin, am 06.02.2019 um 00:25 schrieb Cedric R via address-policy-wg:
Why not doing a prupose based on LIR, a first lir account receive a /22, if a same entity open a second account, they only receive a /24.
First: it just won't be "the same entity". While it may be the same actors, it's usually a separate legal entity, so no cookies. Second: as soon as the currently available IPv4 resources fell dry, there's an issue: by current policy, a new LIR is entitled to receive a /22 worth of addresses. If RIPE NCC cannot serve this at registration time, what happens then? AFAIKS this ist not yet covered by policy.
That prupose is to avoid some LIR with huge amount take all space and let's nothing for small LIR wo can't do.
Sorry to say this, but: that has been tried to avoid and proved to be "difficult" at best. One cannot prevent others from going corporate a dozen of times, each time setting up an LIR, each time taking a /something IPv4. Not easily, not without hurting legitimate newcomers.
Actualy a /22 from RIPE cost 4800€ VAT EXCL (2 year + setup) , on market it's 15- 20K€
Yes, but raising the RIPE membership fee to 10k/year would face other issues (like, being a non-profit, what to do with the surplus? Redistributing it to the members would just mean _entry_ is expensive, not _staying_) ...
I know some company can have multiple entity to buy extra range. Some company is cheap to register like in UK. Maybe use company UBO registry obligation in EU can fight that ?
RIPE Region does cover more than just EU (EU28 or EU27 doesn't matter here). Regards, -kai