Am 2015-05-06 11:05, schrieb Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN:
Point is, even for people that DO deploy IPv6, there is still a need of
v4 adresses for quite some time. The "hit the wall hard, ASAP" strategy
(like in ARIN or LACNIC land) doesn't seem to be the solution favoured
by the community in RIPE-land.
And exactly this is the reason why the /22-policy is as it is and is not
meant to be bypassed by setting up LIRs and transfering.
Even if your "default" is IPv6, you'll need at least this few IPv4 to be
able to run CGN etc.
I just had this mail (below) in my ticketsystem
Hello.
As you know, the RIPE NCC can only provide one final /22 to your LIR
because it is currently allocating address space from the last /8 of
IPv4 addresses.
However the RIPE NCC allows to get IPv4 addresses from other LIR. Our
company has LIR status and ready to transfer such addresses to your
LIR. This operation is approved by the RIPE NCC and absolutely legal.
The blocks are absolutely clean, haven't been in usage, are absent in
any blacklist.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me. Simply answer to
this letter and you will get the answer shortly.
... and reading this I think the policy must be strictly changed. I do
not exactly know the wording of RIPE membership rules, but if you set up
a "Verein" in Germany (and this is more or less the type which matches
best the legal form RIPE NCC has) you are recommended to put something
like "each and every person who is willingly doing any harm to the club,
it's reputation or other members is to be kicked out without any right
for compensations. All rights this person has be being member are
immediately withdrawn. The exclusion from the club does not reduce the
any regress against the excluded member".
I see, that it is not possible to prevent every bypassing, but I think
someone who is even spaming and advertising sale of resources shall be
kicked out RIPE NCC immediately and all resources this person or
enterprise ever requested should be withdrawn!
I am not saying that people opening a second LIR and later merges this
second LIR back after a while for which ever reason (e.g. second LIRs
purpose did not launch successfully) should not be hit by this rule;
sometimes plans don't work out. But if it is obviously that someone is
doing it "regualary" this IS obviously and can be seen easily by
membership application and here we absolutely should stop the abuse.
BR
Jens
