One correction: Not
> Total count of allocated blocks can be calculated (approximately) as A * B > where A and B are octets in allocation address 185.A.B.0/22. > Octet A can be named "series" and B / 4 is possible block count in each > "series". > > B is always 64 and A (for now) is 97. Thus totally allocated T2 = 97 * 64 = > 6208 blocks from last /8. But > Total count of allocated blocks can be calculated (approximately) as A * B / > 4 where A and B are octets in allocation address 185.A.B.0/22. > Octet A can be named "series" and B / 4 is possible block count in each > "series". > > B is always 128 and A (for now) is 97. Thus totally allocated T2 = 97 * 128 / > 4 = 6208 blocks from last /8. Final digits are the same. 23.04.2015, 14:20, "Vladimir Andreev" <[email protected]>: > Hi, All! > > I decided to express my opinion regarding this proposal. > > As appears from the proposal summary it pursues the following goals: > > 1. prevent opening LIR, receiving /22 and selling it > 2. prevent making a financial profit from st. 1 > 3. save IPv4 space from exhaustion > > Looking at listed items I can suppose either Elvis is angry at people earning > money or really /22 reselling is bad for RIPE and its community. > At half part of my letter I prove that /22 reselling has negligible impact on > community. > > As a way to achieve the goals the proposal offer to substitute st. 5.5 from > ripe-623 for: > > "LIRs that receive an allocation from the RIPE NCC or a re-allocation from > another LIR cannot re-allocate complete or partial blocks of the same address > space to another LIR within 24 months of receiving the re-allocation." > > If pointed change to st. 5.5 is accepted we will face with the following: > > - Black market of /22 transfers will grow rapidly. Companies wishing to > acquire IPv4 space can compose fake papers with sellers regarding > merging/acquisition and send it to RIPE NCC (like IPv4 PI space as it was > till recently). Also it should be noted that RIPE NCC can't forbid transfers > which are under merging/acquisition since such transfers only reflect > internal company(is) structure. > - Companies wishing to sell /22 can just wait for 24 months (if they have > enough patience of course). > - The policy doesn't prevent opening multiple LIR's, merging LIR's together > and then using received /22's for own company needs. > > In other words the policy doesn't introduce sufficient arrangements to > achieve set goals. I.e. in current view the policy is inoperative. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Let's calculate what ratio of transferred /22's from last /8 (T1) to total > count of allocated /22's (T2) is. > > At > https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/ipv4-transfers/table-of-transfers > page type into filter "185.0". > After that go to web browser console and type: > $('#transfers-table-allocations tr').length > > For 23 April 2015 we have T1 = 237. > > Total count of allocated blocks can be calculated (approximately) as A * B > where A and B are octets in allocation address 185.A.B.0/22. > Octet A can be named "series" and B is possible block count in each "series". > > B is always 64 and A (for now) is 97. Thus totally allocated T2 = 97 * 64 = > 6208 blocks from last /8. > > Ratio of transferred blocks is 237 / 6208 * 100 ~ 3.81% > > From my point of view it's NOT SIGNIFICANT number at all. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Let's also calculate how /22 reselling impact on IPv4 exhaustion. > > RIPE NCC allocate approximately 10-15 /22's per day of 40-60 /22's per week > (S). Averaging will receive S = 50. > > Sold /22's have sped up IPV4 exhaustion only for T1 / S = 237 / 50 = 4.74 > weeks. > > I.e. /22 reselling impact is just 1 MONTH of exhaustion! > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Summarizing I would like to say that the proposal has questionable reasons of > its introduction, also questionable goals and offer inoperative changes to > RIPE NCC policy. > > Also I believe that listed arguments will help WG to make Impact Analysis. > > 23.04.2015, 13:29, "Infinity Telecom SRL" <[email protected]>: >> Hello, >> >> If this proposal will be accepted: >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 >> >> The price per IP found at "IPv4 Transfer Listing Service" will be double >> or even worst. >> >> Little companies will be out of business.. and we will be one of them. >> >> To pay double or even more for some spammed IP.. its not a good choice.. >> only because smart guys with no real internet business hold very large blocks >> >> This proposal should have more time, its not like any other proposal, this >> can affect activity for a lot of small companies. >> >> Thank you. >> >> -- >> Cu stima, >> Gabriel Voitis | Sales Manager >> [email protected] >> >> INFINITY TELECOM SRL | Bd-ul Iuliu Maniu nr 7, Corp A, Scara 2 >> Mobil: +40 0725 677 477 | Tel: +40 021 7808805 | Fax: +40 021 7808806 >> [email protected] > > -- > 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
