Hi Saeed, > > why not go for that stronger policy right now?
Policy definition process is taking a while. From first attention on this topic (afaik at RIPE 69 in London) until now it took around 8 months, before it is adopted around 12 month. With adopting this one now, we prevent that all rest of /22s we have, is now being hoarded and sold by someone, before a stricter policy is defined. > why not stop transferring all IPV4 addresses at all? closing all of > these businesses. > > Isn't it true that we are encouraging people toward IPV6? So, isn't it > true that letting people to transfer their spaces (selling them), > will provide additional addresses to those who need it and as a result > it delays IPV6 deployment? Exactly that's what I think and exactly that's the reason why I am absolutely with you to stop V4 transfers. There are legal cases (e.g. the merger of two Hosters (recent example HostEurope and Intergenia in Germany who actually both serve a couple of thousands of endusers and a renumbering or removing of their V4 would mean hurting the end-users). But those rare cases can be reasonably argued and therefore exceptions can be made. The hurdle for transfering by means of "how to justify need for transfer" only needs to be high enough, that it is not done "for fun". BR Jens > > with kind regards, > Saeed. > > -- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: [email protected] HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
