I think you mix "preventing making profit" and "assure available IPv4 space to new entrants".
As I calculated (and presented my results some days ago) reselling has low impact on IPv4 exhaustion. So the only reason (as I see it) is just to prevent earning money. Therefore I have reasonable question: why do some members worry about someone's profit? And PLEASE don't tell me about "abusing". As somebody said earlier in current discussion there are big IP-blocks allocated before Sep. 2012 without real need. Just because "we used all previously allocated space". Holders of such blocks are much strong "abusers". 25.04.2015, 15:42, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <[email protected]>: > On Sat, 25 Apr 2015, Infinity Telecom SRL wrote: >> How its possible to ask RIPE NCC in 2010-2011 to give you bunch of /15 >> /16 /17 and to day.. your company not need it any more.. > Some people have started putting their customer base behind NAT44(4) to > shift IPv4 address usage from a customer base that will not complain too > loudly to end up behind NAT44(4), to a customer base where NAT44(4) would > cause a lot of problem. > > So this "need" is always relative. I don't know if you're trying to claim > that the providers didn't need these addresses? > > After the investment in NAT44 has been taken (which might have involved > hundreds of thousands or millions of EUR), some might discover that they > actually can do without some IPv4 addresses they needed before, and thus > they might put it on the market because it makes business sense. This > doesn't mean they didn't need it, and these addresses can always be proven > to be needed, it's just that if the market price for IPv4 addresses is > high enough, then it makes sense to sell. > > It's like my old chairs I have in the corner, that I use occasionally. If > I get enough money for them, I might sell them. Does this mean I do not > need them? Well, I can prove to you that I do use them (thus I have some > kind of need for them), but I can find alternatives if I get enough money. > This is a grey area, not black and white. >> Very hard to understand this.. >> >> Right now i should find a why to help new LIRs or old LIRs, but truly >> companies not ghosts that want to make profit ! > That's what the current policy proposal change is all about, to make sure > that the business case for "start LIR, get /22, transfer /22, shut down > LIR" isn't too much better than the market price for IPv4 addresses. > Exactly to stop people absuing the system for profit. > > Yes, it's profit even if you keep it for yourself and don't sell it, > because you've now lowered your cost, acquiring a resource at a lower > price than you would have if you followed the intent of the policy. > > You seem to mix up intent of policy, and what the policy actually says. > The intent has always been to assure available IPv4 space to new entrants > to the market, so they can get started. So if you did the "start LIR, get > /22, transfer /22, shut down LIR" then you might not have violated the > policy, but you were not following the intent of why the policy is the way > it is. So that's why the policy is now proposed to be changed, so that it > more closely follows the intent behind it. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
