Hi guys Many years ago I questioned why we ever invented a market for address space 'that no one owns' when we had a perfectly good system of allocating address space based on need and when no longer needed was returned to the RIR to be re-allocated...for free. I was told 'don't be silly, people will still sell the address space but not record the transfers in the RIPE Database'. So the quality of the registry diminishes. What is going to stop people selling these 'never to be transferred' allocations and not recording the transfer in the RIPE Database? I am sure some back door dealings can be arranged to keep the LIRs active that have the allocations registered and obfuscate the fee payments to confuse the RIPE NCC. Have companies developed some sense of morality in recent years?
cheers denis co-chair DB-WG On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 at 16:41, Sander Steffann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > >> On 7 Dec 2021, at 14:56, Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> My suggestion would be along the lines what was proposed on the APWG > >> meeting already - earmark these /24s as non-transferrable, ever. > > > > +1 WFM > > +1 from me as well. This would have very little (if any) impact on the > newcomers for whom this policy was created. > > Transfers that have already happened should not be affected of course, but we > can make a policy that stops new transfers being made in the future. I would > prefer to disallow any new transfers, independent of when the assignment was > made, to avoid a rush on the NCC for new memberships. > > Cheers, > Sander > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
