Hi Payam, > My point of view is such policies in practice would punish the newcomers > rather than those who got plenty of resources in the old days [probably > without proper justification] > I remember the days which our LIR was negotiating with a RIPE NCC IP analyst > and he declined our request although we had proved that our need was even > more than what we submitted in our application, and eventually the block > which he approved was less than what we requested. > And at those time, some other western LIRs got their IP blocks.
Please don't make allegations like that. I have worked for western LIRs and we had exactly the same process and issues as everybody else. > These days we are trying to buy new IP blocks, and those LIRs are selling! > > That funny story is the real story! While the proposed policy looks very > rational, but it is not going to solve the issue! > The demand is there so the market will find a way to satisfy the demand! People with demand for a /22 can set up their own LIR. No need to let someone else set up an LIR and just sell the space > If I were the gentleman who proposed this policy, I would have proposed > another policy to push the LIRs who had not used their IPs (or pretending to > use that) in favor of LIRs in the developing countries who really can't serve > new customers due to lack of IP space. > > we should not close our eyes on the approvals which were given to LIRs who > got plenty of IPs, and they were supposed to use all the IPs within two years > following the allocation, and still they have a lot of un-assigned (and even > un-advertised!) ones! > > > > On 2016-06-17 02:58:20 CET, Arash Naderpour wrote: >>> I find this inconsistent. Either we do it for *ALL* allocations (including >> the ones allocated prior to the 2012/09 ipocalipse), effectively banning or >> heavily >restricting transfers, or we keep it the way it is today, i.e. for >> *NO* allocations. >> >> Not sure why returning some /22 to RIPE NCC free pool can save the >> new-comers but other allocations prior 2012 cannot. If returning an >> allocation is something visible it should be for all allocations not only to >> the smallest ones, it is not fair. >> >> Regards, >> >> Arash > > > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum >
