Hello, it seems to be a good idea to earmark new /24 IPv4 allocations as non-transferrable. It's simple from administrative point of view and clear policy for newcommers. - Daniel On 12/7/21 15:56, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 02:29:15PM +0000, Erik Bais wrote:
As WG chairs we would like to see the position of the WG on the topic and what could be seen as a possible solution.
As a member of the WG, I do share the sentiment that the intent of the "IPv4 runout" policies have been "ensure that late comers to the game can have a bit of IPv4 space, to number their IPv6 translators", and not "grab some space for free, and sell it for more money elsewhere".
I do not think this can be fixed on the AGM level ("one legal entity can only have one LIR account") - we've been there, in the rush to /22s, and all it does it "make people hide behind shell companies", so in the end, the address space goes out anyway, but registry quality suffers.
Trying to make the NCC require even more paperwork isn't going to stop those that want to game the system, but will impact everyone else by making the NCC more annoying to deal with.
My suggestion would be along the lines what was proposed on the APWG meeting already - earmark these /24s as non-transferrable, ever.
Consequences:
- there is no more financial incentive to "get one cheap, sell it expensive"
- if you need space to run your business, this is exactly what it is there for - you can still sell your business (with the /24), you just need to keep the LIR account. But that's as with other business assets.
- if you want to merge multiple LIR accounts, all having their own /24 - then you need to keep around these accounts, or return some of the /24s. - corrolary: if you use these /24s to number your IPv6 translators, then renumbering this translator into "your other /24" is actually not very hard. - corrolary2: If you use the /24s to directly number your customers, you missed the boat already (wearing my RIPE unicorn t-shirt today).
Gert Doering -- NetMaster