On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi Tore,
The way I see it, this argument applies equally well to LIR->EU assignments, and to {LIR,EU}->{LIR,EU} transfers. I don't understand what makes sub-allocations special here.
It would IMHO be much more interesting to see a proposal that would retire the needs-based principle completely for all forms of IPv4 delegations (that aren't taken from the NCC pool). Does it really serve any useful purpose nowadays?
If some LIR wants to give away (assign, transfer, sub-allocate - whatever) all their remaining free space to someone who doesn't really need it - why not let them? It won't impact me or anyone else since their wasteful spending can no longer translate into an increased draw from the shared pool. I, on the other hand, would certainly not miss the assignment request documentation bureaucracy.
Call for feedback: I am very interested in how the working group feels about such an idea these days now that the normal RIPE NCC IPv4 pool has run out.
I think Tore has a point. The rules for IPv4 were useful as long as there were IPv4 addresses to hand out but now they just makes life harder for those who need addresses and if we have a lot of regulations to stop an open market we will just have higher prices on a black market. I would also like to see IPv6 policies much more simple. The situation today is that customers applying for IPv6 space are rejected completely or if they a number of prefixes (i.e. an international clouds based company wants one per site) they get some, but not fewer than they wanted. Best Regards, Daniel Stolpe _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 13 054 556741-1193 103 02 Stockholm