Dear Mr. Schmidt, I want to make a comment on your proposal "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria“. https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 <https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05>
We became RIPE member about 1,5 years ago. We have received one single /22 subnet. Due to groth requirement, we have purchased an additional /23 subnet a few weeks ago in an auction. In you proposal it is stated that for an additional /22 allocation the member „must not have transferred any IPv4 address space before“. I hope this requirement only concernes transfers away from us, not to us. Otherwise I find it very unfair that we are punished for organizing additional subnets in a legal way for our regular business. We don’t intend to trade with those IPs. Best regards, Kai Rottleb -- KNT Internet, Inh. Kai Rottleb Riethnordhaeuser Str. 71 99189 Hassleben, Germany Mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Tel: 036201 61055 Mobil: 01723971017
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
