Resuming my position is: - Current proposal doesn't aim effect it was created for (/22 receiving is possible, transfer due to merger/acquisition is possible) - Current proposal has not clear reasoning (according to my calculations, exhaustion due to having multiple /22's per LIR is not so serious) - Opening multiple LIR's and having multiple /22 is not abusing (because policies don't contain any statements prohibiting this) So I haven't ANY reason to support this proposal. 23.04.2015, 16:39, "Vladimir Andreev" <vladimir@quick-soft.net>:
Because the policy says "one /22 per LIR".
Policy sets this rule only for /22's received from RIPE NCC.
Indeed, RIPE NCC will not allocate you several /22. I have tested it :)
The only way is to receive allocations from other LIR (own or belonging to other companies). An such order doesn't abuse any policies.
If we suppose having multiple /22 per LIR is abusing then main "abuser" is RIPE NCC since RIPE NCC makes transfers and LIR merging allowing to receive second /22 etc.
23.04.2015, 16:35, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 04:22:51PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
What from this quotation is? Please give me a link. And what statement exactly of the current policy is abusing? Stop turning in circles. This question has been answered before. Also I would like to receive concrete answer to the question: Why using multiple /22's for own company is not abusing but selling is abusing? Because the policy says "one /22 per LIR".
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
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503